Omaha daily bee., 1903-05-02

gems shall be treated fairly and that none
shall be disseminated against. If 1t is
right to close three or four saloons, II is
right to close all saloons. No discrimina-
tion will hereafter be permitted.
No More secret Sessions.
mo sec-et sessions Of the board will be
held hereafter or tolerated. Every thing
relating to the fire and police departments
shall be done in the open.
1.-THE chief Of police will be at once noti-
fed and required to hereafter disregard the
private orders OF Mr.. Broatch and to OBJ
serve only the orders that emanate from
myself as mayor of the city and chairman
ex-oficio of the board.
IT know what my rights are as mayor,
and I propose hereafter to exercise them
to the end Of maintaining an orderly city
and protecting every citizen without refer
ence to his business. politics or religion"
COnnell's View of the Case.
City Attorney Cornell gave out this in
terview: 81 do not know why the decision
Of the supreme court is rendered at this
particular time. I can only conjecture.
The decision bears evidence of having been
hastily prepared. 1t does not cover the
points involved. 1t does not touch upon
and utterly fails to decide the vital point in
the case.
"As soon as the smoke OF the battle of
Tuesday passes away / propose to file mo-
tions for a rehearing. l propose to Ale one
motion for all the members Of the old
board, and also file a separate motion on
behalf of Mr.. Kennedy. whose original term
Of once has not yet expired. / refer to the
identical term of ONCE which was litigated
and decided in his favor in the so-called
Eaan,l Aa-, T.
in pursuance of an ordinance which pro-
vided for his term for three years and
until his successor should be appointed and
qualified,
Under the law as recognized by the
supreme court in the decision Just handed
down the prior judgments in the Moores
and Kennedy cases are res judicata as to
The term Of office that was involved in
either Of those cases. I did not expect to
win the case on the points covered by
Judge Holcomb's opinion which has iust
been fled. did, however. expect TO win
the case on the proposition that the facts
put in issue in the Kennedy case and de-
cided in favor OF the members OF the old
board could not be disputed in a subsequent
suit between the same parties or their
p~rivies.
THE law in support OF his proposition
Is so positive and clearly declared by the
highest courts OF the land that there can
be no question regarding its correctness.
In a recent case decided by the United
States supreme court the following was
announced as the true statement of the
law.
"A right, question or fact distinctly nut
In issue and directly determined by a court
OF competent jurisdiction as a ground of
recovery cannot be disputed in a subse-
quent suit between the same parties or
their privies' and, even II the second suit
Is for a different cause of action, the right.
question or fact, once so determined, must.
as between the same parties or their
privies' be taken as conclusively estab-
lished, so long as the judgment In the hrst
suit remains unmodihed.
Law POihta Involved.
while It is true that a number Of the
parties in this case are different from those
In the Kennedy case, all are in privity with
their predecessors. This is what has been
declared by JueGe Sullivan to be the law.
A public officer is regarded as being in
privity With his predecessor when both de-
rive their authority from the same source.
LAS stated, I did not expect to win out
before the supreme court as at present
constituted on the great Fundamental prop
osition Of home rule. Neither did ex-
peet TO win out. excepting as TO Mr.. Ken
nedy, on the ground that the present terms
Of once OF the Members OF the old board
were the same as determined in the Ken
nedy case. The proposition on which l
did expect TO win out. and with regard
TO which the authorities overwhelmingly
and unanimously sustain me. IL that in the