The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-10-10
HAVE RUN
THEIR BLUFF
Fusion State Committee Files
Suit Here.
Is DONE FOR EFFECT
But the Local Fusion Candi-
dates Don't Like It.


as anticipated filed IN the district court
n Wichita a suit in maudamus OF sec
rotary OF State George clark and County
CLERK John Chain. seeking 10 get the
state ticket headed BY Craddock twice or
The Official ballot
The suit IS not brought wi-h any idea
Of achieving this result. but with the idea
q putting some lie IN the dormant fusion
politics. by 1aakiag>out that the Craddook
ticket is being terribly mlslsed By beng
restrained u ole place on the ballot.
~ IS vel known tie f1s.ou commit
Tee brought suit in the supreme court 10
test the constitution of the uew BAL
lot law. which prevents a man from re-
pearing his name - q candidate on ry70
or more tickets on the ballot when
brought before the supreme court. the
judges q that court said that inasmuch
as I'VE q them were candidates they did
not care 70 hear the case
The fusion managers we're taken by
surprise Having failed in Topeka, they
decided TO bring suits against George
Clark and a county clerk In any county
who was not a Republican
They include county clerk because
they cannot get service on Secretary
Clark except By bringing suit in Shaw
nee county which has Republican
judge They have figured OUT on poor
legal advice evidently that they can ger
service on Clark perhaps By making q
county clerk party 70 the suit The law
4r-fs rzar- =
party TO suit IN the county in which
The suit IS brought. service can also be
had on an interested party ia another
county. II that party is legally a party
% the suit
Every 5ody who understood the case
said last evening thar 1T vas q piece OF
common and very cheap campaign thua- +
der County Clerk John Chain occupies /
q ministerial Office. Secretary Of state
Clark viii certify 70 him the nominations !
for state Offices IS Democratic Chain /
has no discretion IN the matter. He VIII 4
have 70 take chem and place them On the !
ballot as certified The suit does not re- ?
fer 70 the county ticket. The legal con-
nection between Chain ard Clark is not
there. even vaguely Z is a legal error.
what the lawyers call a misjoinder Of
parties and viii 90 down Of its own
weight Service cannot D. had on George
Clark. secretary Of STATE, except IL Shaw
nee county. The writ IS returuable Oc-
tobe- Is
Locally the Democrats are LAUGHING
about the suit. because locally the DEM
oorats, particularly # the staIwart kind,
want the ticket only on the ballot once.
They are weary of fusion and want q see
Il RELOCATED this year. And one prominent
Democrat suggested q danger 70 the fusion
candidates last evening ia these words;
The fusion committee which has
brought this suit doesnt expect it to
20 through 1t is just a little oampaign
scheme. Our local fusicn candidates DO
not want IL sustained now An order
from Judge Dale granting the ma7damus
would scare them to death I viii tell
YOU why That rev ballot law. pat
termed after others IN states where they
have been declared valid and sound. says
thai mans name cannot appear on
the same ballot twice Now suppose q
fusion candidate gets 152o votes as o
PopuIist and 100 votes as a Democrat.
or s0p votes in all Then suppose the
candidate against him gets
J. 500 votes and af.er the election contests
the fusionist and case goes TO the SUI :
creme court as some test else would iul- i,
rediately The Jaw is plain The SUI
1rerne court could md bur one interpre- {,
alton for it. That would be that the
nan who was twice on the ticket was
mere contrary u law He wouldn't set !
lis Office. His Republican opponent :
would
Il is understood that The same suit +
brought here yesterday was brought in >
jefferson county. where there IS p DEM b.
,oratic Judge q
The attorneys for the fusion commit g
ee are: David Overmyer. \. J. Water e.
.ury aid Allen * Allen They are eN-
,ected 70 appear Monday at O'Clock in q
he morning % arrange the case. i.
This IS his petition which IS the same q
e fled IN -rhe supreme court. q
Z the District Court II Searvics e
County. Kansas %
AFFIDAVIT FOR WRIT OF sEAND .a
Affidavit for yrrit Of Naadanlus. q
VILLAIN H Craddock. II T. Farr-uy. q
Chairman. and W. J. Babs- ChAr- p
nan. Plaintiffs. =
Against q
Ohm N Chain. county Clerk II Sedg- n
CLERKS q the SJcte II Kansas. and "a
Georse A Clark Secretary Ell State. e
Defendants.
tate of Kansas. Marion County So
william r. Crad5ock. q lawful age.
eng first daily sworn AID deposed g
.ys. That -ac plaintiff. Il. J. Farrelly.
= qualified voter " %ecsh county. s.
ansas. and Is the chairman u ths m
ate executive committee and the prin- 80
pal executive officer If the association
qualified v0pers q saiI state COM
oEly known as The Democratic party. g.
at the PLAINTIFF j. ~ Bsho Is d crali- p
d slector or SsGswick county. Kansas
d 5 the Chairman ara chief executive 20
sicer of the association ~ said state
unouIv known as fle Peoples Parity.
ID this aGiaar the plaintiff. W.Elam
Crad6ocz Is. and f3r many years
has been. 8 q1ahaed siec-
r q said state. having his reslle1cs
kansas cry. IN the county Il vs. -
dctte. that IRE defendant john II
.sin. Is the county clerk u SedsWics
unity. Kansas and as such is made --
reucazt herein. and as TIE representa- -
e Of tie county clerks ~ al che o-he-
urfies II the state az Kansas. ana
At George A. Clark is the duly emitted =
1 acting secretary ~ The state II
.nsss 70 which ofios Re was elected
r tie thea ensuing term q rRo ye1-s
tire state election e A =. 1870 as
E candidate Of TIE portion or division
The qualified voters Of said state -
own as The Republican party. wtrh
,or- - then was srf stiu IS openly