The Manitowoc pilot. [volume] (Manitowoc, Wis.) 1859-1932, 1904-09-22
ATTY. HARNESS ARGUMENT.

The able argument made by Attorney
John Barnes Of Rhlnelander on Septem-
Der 18th in the boilers case before the
supreme court made profound i'm
preston and has attracted widespread
attention. While Mr. Barnes has for
some years past been looked up to ~ one
Of the foremost lawyers in the state, his
powerful effort at Madison can not fail
to give him ~ national reputation. He
confined himself closely to his brief,
which covered every phase Of the ques-
tions in issue.
He held that the question Of party
place on the ballot was II matter to be
settled at the ballot box by the voters
and that il was not properly matter OF
judicial cognzanCe. The various court
decisions show that the Judiciary regard
the voters ~ the proper tribunal for the
settlement Of AL political controversies
When he cited cases from Wisconsin
reports. Justice Marshall interrupted
him with the remark that California
courts had construed this matter differ
emily. In reply Mr., Barnes quietly oh
served that he hoped that such decisions
Of the California courts had not led the
learned Justice TO change his views re.
specting hi4 own decision in "A Wisconsin
case from which he ATTY. Barnea) was
quoting This was merely one Of the
numerous instances in which Mr. Barnes
showed his remarkable readiness at re-
plying aptly toevery incidental question
His argumcn, evinced lndeiatigable
study and thorough mastery of the
complicated case His intellectual grasp,
legal acumen ncisive logic and lucid
language all con~pire 10 place him in the
first rank Of forensic speakers. His
mastery Of the principles Of law and his
facility in quoting authorities are pro
bably unsurpassed in this state
He cited case after case IN support of
his contention that courts refuse TO dc.
eide political ,ieputcs IN party conyen
tons He especially emphasized New
York case in which the court after de
Gliding political controversy on its
merits reversed itsOwn decision simply
because political committee having
legal coRnizauce Of the questions IN issue
afterwGrd- decided the matter differently
although in glarinRy unjust manner
In reviewing the case the court pointed
out the gross injustice Of the decision
arrived at 10y the political committee
but nevertheless reversed itself on the
ground that the matter was not Of proper
judicial cOgulzauce rud that the political
committee was the proper tribunal TO
settle the questions IN issue no matter
whether that committees decision wae
just or unjust.
Mr. Barnes coutended that inasmuch
~ the Legislature had created "a quasi
Judicial body 10 decide such casez il
was the proper tribunal 10 settle al
disputes arising in political party con
yentionH
Justice Marshall ! understand thai
the other side claims that there Is
no tribunal 70 80 act as he one is pre-
JUDGED which has been created by law
Mr. Barnes ] DO not think that such
claim can be sci up unless the law
provided for a change II venue There
ii always a remedy in law but there IL
no law here which provides for the quee
tioning If the decision IF the state cen
trail committee on all political matters
affecting the ticket by certifying the
proper officers mp TO the secretary Of
slate DO not see how this court OF
any ether can take this matter mp in
advance Of action on the part Of the
committee operating under section -
and only then after sueh action by the