The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-10-14
DID NOT HAVE
JURISDICTION
Judge Dale Declined to Issue
Writ of ManGamuS
AGAINST GEO. A. CLARK
Secretary of State Performs
No Duties in Sedgwick Co.

Judge Dale. Of the district court yes
terday refused 10 take jurisdiction ovel
George A. Clarke, secretary Of state il
the mandamus suit brought TO compe
| him and the county clerks of Kansa!
10 place on the official ballot this veal
| the names of the Democratic and Popu
list candidates, the names on the ticke
twice under separate headings. Judge
! Dale in making his decision, stated thai
he could see no act Of negligence in thi:
/ county as made By the secretary of state
| BY law the secretary is compelled K
perform his duties in the capitol build
ing al Topeka. Under this law it was
/ the courts opinion that no part Of The
cause Of action arose in Sedgwick county
and therefore he had no jurisdiction If
the case as far as the secretary OF state
was concerned and the motion 10 dismiss
! the complaint against the secretary OF
state was sustained
Last Friday the law committee of the
| Democratic and Populist state central
| committees filed a petition asking for
a writ OF mandamus against Secretary OF
/ Site George Clark and County Clerk
Jonn Chain. Hearing of the case was set
| for nine O'Clock yesterday morning David
| Overmeyer of Topeka. Democrat and Mr.
Stephen II. Allen OF Topeka, and Ed. n.
Waterbury. Populists. appeared for the
complainants. Attorney General Goddard
and his assistant, j. S. West. appeared
for the secretary OF state and George
Adams for John Chain.
Immediately on the calling OF the case,
Attorney General Goddard moved that
the court dismiss the action against the
secretary of state. He supported his
motion with the argument that. the COM
plain must be filed in the county IN which
the officer lives and the secretary of
state lives in Shawnee county. that the
Complainants had no right 10 join the
county clerk and secretary Of state and
as the Offices were Of different import
ance and different in the duties required
OF each other that two separate actions
should be brought.
Judge Allen. appearing for the COM
plainants, stated that the alternative
writ of mandamus was left with the
secretary OF state. Mr.. Clark was not
in his Office when the officer called and
personal service was not secured except
that the writ was left with the assist
ant secretary OF state, II. P. Wilson and
counsel claimed that as the work Of the
office was continuous the duties devolv-
ed on the assistant and this made the
service personal The counsel also stated
that they had prepared notice that a
premptory writ of mandamus had been
served. On the secretary OF state this
was done by leaving a copy at his resi-
dence.
Judge Allen read from the law defni-
ton Of mandamus that it was an action
brought to compel public officials TO do
their duty. 1t was given the people in
order that they might obtain speedy re-
dress Of their wrongs in order that jus
tica should NOT be rhWarfed
1t is the duty of the county clerk TO
print the ballots to be used in an election
and it is the duty of the secretary Of
state to certify TO the county clerk the
names Of the candidate for state Offices
he read from the new election law what
a candidate cannot accept the nomina
ton of more than one political party.
When the certificate of the two conven-
tons are handed In to the secretary Of
state the candidate must elect on which
ticket his name shall appear II he does
not do this the secretary of state or the
cOunsy clerk may do 80. In the matter
of state officers the county clerk is guild
ed only BY the certificates of the score
tary Of state The Democratic and Peo-
pies party held state conventions and
each filed their certificates OF nomination
with the secretary OF state and here
they were blocked. The secretary re-
FUSED TO act The county clerk depends
on the secretary of state and for this
reason the action could be brought joint
ly.
He cited in support Of the above state
ment United States court ruling which
said that all officers who took part in
successive steps 10 any action may be
called into court on a writ OF mandamus.
David Overmeyer then took, up the mat
ter Of jurisdiction. lie stated that the
right TO mandamus was given in order
TO prevent the official from neglecting
his duty. He claimed that the law allows
an action 10 be brought in any county
where the Official does an injury TO the
people. The duties Of the secretary Of
state cover che entire state and his action
affected every county in the state as
regards the lection law. For this reason
counsel did not believe that processes
could be confined 10 the ca pitai county
CT the state for his neglect IN some other
county.
The secretary Of state has a duty to
perform IN every county OF the state and
Mr.. OvermeyeT claimed that the duty IN
Sedgwick county could only be performed
in Sedgwick county. He stated that the
fusion law committee proceeded against
both the secretary Of state and the coun-
" clerk at one time on account OF the
short time before election as October
18th is the date for the secretary Of state
TO certify down the names TO be placed
on the ballots In each county. The sttor-
ney believed that the secretary OF state
could legally come 20 Sedgwick county
and make out TIE list a candidates for
the ballots. Re could make out his third
list and send II by q srecial messenger,
but there vas no law that allowed him
- ssnd II through tho mail. and accord
lag 10 the letter Of ne law reEa riing
mandamuc procedure. an action could be
brought wherever the dUtv was neg ected
MI Overmeyer cited the civil law -
made BY the last legislature which gives