Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1904-11-25

ton of the party has passed upon the
question, but suffer the same to remain
in the domain of politics. Courts have
occasionally been called upon to. pass
upon questions similar to the case at
bar, and, when not based upon statute
law, the rule that such decisions are
most properly to be determined as to
political questions by political conven-
lions, or their committees duly author
lied, seems to us founded on the best
reasons" The following authorities
sustain our conclusions in the above
case and may be added to those cited
in the opinion: Davis VS.. Hambrick.
100 KY. 276; Blais VS.. Bazeau, (R. ~
Sc Att. 1856; Williams VS.. Lewis, (Ida.),
81 Pac. 619; State VS.. Weston, 70 Pac.
SIG. The opinion Of the supreme
court of Wisconsin, in the recent case
of State VS.. Hauser, involving the reg
ularity of two rival republican state
conventions, turned entirely upon a
provision in the Wisconsin statutes.
The national republican convention
had recognized the so-called "Stal-
wart" convention as the regular one
and had seated its delegates. The
state central committee disregarded
the action of the convention and recog
nized the "LaFollette convention and
declared and certified that it's NOM
inees were the regular nominees of
the republican party of that state.
The court declined to investigate and
determine which convention was reg
ular in point of fact or to go further
that to ascertain which of the con-
ficting adjudications by the party
| authorities should control the secre-
tary of state in preparing and printing
the official ballot. A majority of the
court, under the coercion of a statute
which required that preference in
designation shall be given to the nomi-
nation of one certified by the commit
tee, Held to mean state central CON-
mittee), which had been officially GER
titled to be authorized to represent
the party constrained to hold that the
decision Of the state central commit
tee was controlling. So far as that
case touches the question, it supports
the view that an adjudication by
party tribunal is conclusive upon the
courts. In summarizing, Judge Mar
shall, who wrote the majority opinion,
said: eve have ascertained that the
highest party authority as recognized
by our law has spoken upon the SUBJ
ject in hand. No jurisdictional defect
in that regard has been found to exist.
We must accept that it was decided to
he the law. The members of the
court who participated in the decision
of the Liudahl case are confirmed in
the assurance of the correctness of the
conclusions therein announced and
the entire court is agreed that the
conclusions announced in that case
should be adhered to and that thew
are controlling in this case. Counsel
for defendant do not attack it's sound.
ness. They expressly disclaim any
such purpose. AS we understand II
they seek to avoid it's application by
claiming that the contest was not
heard upon the merits by the state
central committee. In this behalf it is
alleged, in reference to the action
taken by the Fargo convention, that
the Murphy delegates presented tc
the state central committee and offer
ed in evidence before them in support
of their claim, Fifteen lengthy aft
davits; that said republican
state central committee held a shor
session not exceeding ten minutes ant
that they in no manner considered tn,
af1davits, credentials or records pre-
sented to them, but merely on motion
of one of the members seated tn,
members of the so-called "Reorgan
izers' delegates without passing OF
: the merits of the so-called murphy
delegates to participate in such con
vention. AS to the proceedings at tn
Grand Forks convention it is allege,
that contest was presented to tn
state central committee by the Murph
e delegates and that the committee ac1
ed without considering the affidavit
and records presented to them an
denied their right to participate i
' the convention; that the committe
n, on credentials thereafter appointed b
l. the convention refused to give tn
t Murphy delegates the right to presen
e their rights and their side Of the ma,
r. ter, allowing them only ten minute
+ to do so; that it would have. take
Q said committee several hours in whic
r to examine the testimony which wa
$ offered by said Murphy delegates: ths
y said Murphy delegates were refuse
|. permission to present such matter +