The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-07-13
GRIN AND BEAR IT
That LIS Only Thing Left for
Allen and Anthony.
Supreme Court Refuses to Give
Any Relief.
QUESTION OF TIE LAW
Contest Board Construed 1t in
Own Way.
VIII Not Assume the Function
of Reviewing Court.
QUESTION OF THE LAW

The supreme court this morning de-
| cided the congressional contests against
| H. ]. Allen and d. r. Anthony, Jr. The
court says there was no evidence pre-
sented to the court showing fraud on
| the part of the contest board, and that
the court therefore cannot open the
contests and hear them on their merits.
The court takes the view that the ac-
tion of the contest board does not show
fraud but a different construction of
the law from that contended by the
plaintiffs. The supreme court says it
will not pass upon the question whether
the contest board was right in it's con-
struction of the law, and as there is no
other court which can review the mat
ter there seems to be no way of testing
the question. In other words. the con-
test board can construe law any way
it pleases and no court will pass upon
the legality of its construction.
According to the supreme court de-
cision an illustration used by Bryan in
the Democratic convention is applica-
ble," said a prominent Kansas Repulli-
can who was in st. Louis last week.
1T was in the argument over the Illi-
noiS contest. the anti Hopkins dele
cation was seated by the credentials
committee on the ground that the state
committee unanimously signed its Gre
dentials. According to this decision >
said Bryan, "A gang of robbers could
go out and hold up train and if they
should unanimously certify that it was
legal, the courts would have nothing to
do about it In these congressional
contest cases, if a congressional COM
mittee certif1es to anything, it must he
accepted regardless of right or wrong.
The supreme court writes a short per
curiam opinion in the Allen case. An
alternative writ of mandamus was ask
ed for to compel Secretary OF state Bur
row to certify the name of H. J. Allen
as the Republican nominee for congress
in the Second district. The court says:
1T has heretofore been determined
issued in this proceeding stated no
ground for relief except in virtue of its
allegations of fraudulent conduct on the
part of the members of the contest
board A hearing was therefore ordet
ed upon that issue alone NJ on which
the case is now submitted. No evidence
whatever has been produced tending to
impugn the motives of such officers, or
to impeach the good faith of their ac-
ton. The real contention of plaintiff
as developed at the argument is not
that there was actual fraud on the part
of the secretary of state and attorney
general but that they acted under
wrong conception of the law as to the
scope of their investigation and as to
the character of evidence by which they
should be influenced. 1t is argued that
and to consider certain
classes of testimony deprived plaintiff
of any real opportunity II be heard up
on the substantial matters in contro-
versy, and constituted or was evidence
of arbitrary and capriciouS conduct
to legal or constructive
fraud. But the specifications by which
these broad charges are sought to be
supported show that the real complaint
is merely that the majority of the
board took a radically different view of
the law from that contended for by
counsel for plaintiff; a view which.
whether or not it was technically cor
rect was reasonably conceived and con-
sistentIy followed. A case might be
presented in which the departure from
any orderly procedure was so great and
the disregard of the rights of a party
so fragrant, that a court would be JUS
titled in ignoring the conclusion reach
ed. But the situation does not arise
here The rulings complained of are of
a debatabIe character, to pass upon the
correctness of which would be to as
sumo the functions of reviewing
court This we cannot do. The writ is
therefore denied