The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-02-04
ON FEBRUARY 8.
AnthOny-Curtis Contest La Set
for That Date.
Probable That There Will Be a
Continuance.
LAWYERS NOT HERE.
Absence of Mr.. Coleman May
Cause Delay.
Question About Taking It Into
the Courts.
LAWYERS NOT HERE.

The hearing of the contest between
D. r. Anthony. jr., and Charles Curtis
as to whose name shall be placed on
the official ballot as the Republican
nominee for congress in the First dis
trict. has been formally set by Secre-
tary of State Burrow for next Monday,
February 8. 1t will not be heard then,
however. This is only formal, and each
side will agree to a short continuance.
not to exceed fifteen days.
j. G. Slonecker represented Con-
gresham Curtis in the matter, and Mr..
Anthony was communicated with by
telephone. The law provides that the
hearing shall be within five DAYS from
the filing of the notice of contest, but
it can. of course be continued by the
consent of both parties, and this is what
mas been done. as Attorney General
coleman is at Norton prosecuting the
Dewey case and cannot be here for a
number of days. The continuance FOR
not more than fifteen days means that
it will be speedily heard
Inc question which both sides are
now looking up is, Can the case be
taken into the supreme court after the
eieclon board has rendered its de-
cision2
Some of the papers have stated that
the contest board is for Curtis and that
IT'S decision will end the matter. Secre-
thony that the case would be heard
and decided strictly on it's merits, and
Auditor Wells today said practically
tne same thing. However. there is a
possloIIlty of an appeal from the deci-
sion of the board, under certain circum-
stances.
The provision of the statute under
Whlch is claimed there can be no APP
peal from the decision of the election
board is as follows:
II there be a division within a par
" and two or more factions claim the
same or substantially the same, de-
wee, emblem. or party name, or if two
or more conventions are called by diff
| ferent authorities, each claiming to
represent the same party for that pur-
pose, the several tribunals provided for
in section 10 of the act of which this
amendatOry, shall decide, in accord
ance with the provisions of said sec
ton, which of said factions or conven-
tons is entitled to the use of the de-
vice, emblem or party name, so that
the same, or substantially the same
party name. device or emblem shall
not appear more than once on the Of
fetal ballot, and the decision of such
tribunal shall be final"
| The provision with reference to con-
| test, referred to as section 10 in the
| foregoing, is as follows:
The certificate of nomination and
nomination papers being so filed, and
being in apparent conformity with this
act, shall be deemed to be valid, IN
! less objection thereto is duly made in
| writing three days from the date said
| papers are filed with the proper Off
| GERS. Such objections or other ques-
! lions arising in relation thereto, in the
case of nominations of state officers or
officers to be elected by the voters of
| a division less than a state and great
er than a county, shall be considered
| by the secretary of state, auditor of
state, and attorney general, and a de-
cision Of a majority of these officers
! shall be final. In
any case where objection is made, no
| tice shall forthwith be given, by the
| officer with whom the objections are
| filed, to the candidates affected there
| by, addressed to their places of resi-
dence as given in the nomination pa
pers, and stating the time when, in no
case to be more than five days. if a
/ state or district officer, nor more than
| three days if a county officer. and the
place where such objections Will be con-
sidered.
''All mandamus proceedings to compel
an officer to certify and place upon the
/ ballot any name or names, and all in
juction proceedings asking that said of
ficerS be restrained from cerufy1ng ana
placing upon the ballot any name or
names, must be commenced not less
than twenty days before election
Soon after this law was passed the
| supreme court decided, in the ffty-sev-
enth Kansas report, that the tribunal
referred to cannot decide which party is
entitled to the party name, but that 1t
can be taken into the courts This de-
cision is modified, however, in the case
| of Miller VS. Clark in the sixty-second
! Kansas report. This was a case where
| the senatorial convention four years age
in the Johnson Miami district got mixed
1 up over an adjournment. Johnson had
y delegates in the convention and
Miami 10. The Miami crowd was for Z
man named Miller for state senator
while the Johnson delegation was foI
Sponable The Miami people supposed
there had been an adjournment unit
I a future date, but the twelve johnson
i delegates, with one from Miami, went
I ahead and nominated Sponable. Later
the twelve from Miami who had beer
absent with one in the place of the
Miami Sporadic men, nominated Miller
It was passed up to the election board
to decide which should go on the ticket
as the Republican nominee, and tbs
board decided for Sponable. Miller
brought suit in the supreme court t.
compel the secretary of state to place
his name on the official ballot. The SUI
preme court held that in a decision OF
the merits of the case the election
boards ruling should stand. but i
added:
we do not hold, however, that if tn,
action of the officers specially desig
mated to pass on the merits of such
controversy was induced by bad faith
or was the result of arbitrary act.
showing wrongful conduct amounting Il
fraud, or their findings resulted in per
sonal benefit to themselves, equit.
would not interpose to prevent a can
s=-..=-=.--.-..... ------=-.=.-.......=.