The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-04-19
STRIKESAT BOARD
Anthony and Allen Will Attack
Its Legality.
Claim That Law Creating 1t Is
Not Good.
NO APPEAL PROVIDED.
Supreme Court VIII Hear the
Question.
WHY Audffnr Walls nfrcouforR
o APPEAL PROVIDED.
Why Auditor Wells Dissented
in Second District Case.

WMJ Au0lCOr Wells DISSonCeu
in Second District Case.
As soon as the papers can be pre-
pared the Second district congression-
al contest viii be taken into the su-
preme court. The same action may be
taken by the attorneys for d. r. An
thony, jr., in the First district con-
test. The constitutionaIity of the law
creating the state election board and
providing that there shall be no ap-
peal from it's decision, will be attack
ed
There is considerable criticism of
the decision of the board in the Sec
ond district case, and it is looked upon
as purely an arbitrary decision without
foundation in reason. In fact. no at
tempt is made to give any reason for
it. The majority members of the
board will give no reasons for making
the decision. They say that the law
simply provides that they shall decide
contests and they are not compelled
to answer questions or make any find
ings of fact.
State Auditor Wells explained his
position fully in his written dissent
ing opinion. The fact that Attorney
State BurroW absolutely refused to
give any reasons for their decision is
looked upon as evidence that their ac-
ton was arbitrary and purely faction
al. 1t will not strengthen Congress-
man BOwersock's candidacy with the
people of the Second district, even if
the supreme court refuses to inter-
fere.
In the First district a legal question
was involved in the right of the con
gressional committee to segregate the
soldiers home from LeavenwOrth, and
the decision in the Curtis-Anthony
case rested largely on that point It
was on this that Auditor Wells joined
Attorney General Coleman and Secre-
tary of State Burrow in a unanimous
decision. The legality of the segre-
cation will probably be raised in the
supreme court, if the question can be
got into court.
Wells Opinion.
Auditor Wells in his dissenting
opinion in the Second district case, de-
clares that H. J. Allen had a majority
Of the legally elected delegates in the
convention He says:
In dissenting from the majority
findings of my associates on this board
in the Allen -BOWersock contest
want to explain fully my reasons
therefor. In the first place, contend
and hold that it is strictly within the
province of this board to go back of
the Organizat ton of any convention if
It seems necessary to get at the facts
in the case. In this case at issue, the
facts in regard to what the congress
sionaI convention did do or did not do
are so conflicting that have deemed
it necessary to go into the different
county contests to assist me in arriv-
ing at the facts
When the convention met at Gar
nett, there was a dispute as to the
composition of the congressional COM
nittee, and out of this dispute there
grew two conventions. 1t is much
easier for this board in this case to
say who were the legally elected dele
gates than to say who We're the mem
berS of the congressional committee.
Not only is it the province of this
/ board to consider the facts pertaining
to the selection of delegates. but it is
| its duty to do so. If a majority of the
/ legally elected delegates to the Gar
nett convention favored Mr.. Allen, he
was entitled to the nomination.
Il am fully convinced that the main
/ issue in this case hinges on the ques-
/ ton as to who was entitled to the
votes of Miami and Wyandotte coun-
4 ties.
Believing. as do. that the central
/ committee of a county is as supreme
within it's boundaries as is the state or
congressional committee within its
! boundaries, and one should not be
/ permitted to transgress upon the
/ rights of the Other-it naturally fol-
lows that the regular and legally cleo
/ ted delegates of the counties of Mi
ami and Wyandotte were the dele
gates known as the Allen delegation
from Miami and the McGrew delega-
4 tion from Wyandotte.
Allen Won Miami
What are the facts as to the Miami
county contest? Here is what the evi-
! dence presented to this board shows:
That the regular Republican county
! central committee of said county met
! in the city of PaOla in said county on
4 a certain day in pursuance to a call is
Oh Ifr~r11l
! call a county convention to elect dele
! gates to the state and congressional
/ conventions. That Is members out OF
/ 81 of the said committee were presep
at said meeting That said committee
I decided by a vote of Is to 3 to hold a
/ primary to elect delegates to the said
state and congressional conventions.
That the call was duly issued under
these instructions by the chairman and
/ secretary of said committee. That the
| delegates elected at this primary to
/ the congressional convention were for
/ Henry J. Allen for congress. The fore
! going facts are not even denied or dis
puted- But three members of the coun-
| ty central committee and several 9th
| er Republicans in said Miami county
/ called mass meeting of the Repubif-
cans of the county of Miami and pro-
/ ceeded to elect Il new county central
| committee, after which said new and
| alleged county committee called n
! county convention to elect delegates Ia
| tions. and the said convention did elect
/ delegates to the congressional conven-
| ton favorable to J. d. Bowersock for
! congress. And this is one of the deie-
cations that Mr.. Bowersock has 10
+ count for himself to have a majorit y
in said congressional convention l
/ contend that the procedure and meth
4 DDS used by the Bowersock men in Nj
/ ami county are revolutionary and
should not be tolerated one minute By
/ this board. There is not particle si
doubt in my mind, judging by the evi-
dence before this board, that Miami
county was for H. J. Allen in said con-