Idaho Springs siftings., 1905-03-18
ADAMS OR PEABODY?
LEGISLATURE MUST SAY WHICH
Cannot Legally Declare the Election
void-Ans~er Of Supreme Court
to Interrogatories.

Denver. March 1.-THE Supreme
Court of Colorado yesterday Afternoon
handed down its decision in the rnAs-
ter OF the inferrogatoriss propoundsd
TO 1t by the General Assembly. II IS
held that the duty Of deciding the con
test for the goyernorship now before
the assembly must be decided by that
body.
They were as follows:
"Interrogstory /. Can the two
house Of the General Assembly In said
joint convention assembled, in said
contest proceedings. legally adopt the
said Alexander report upon the facts
set forth and rectted therein?
'Interrogatory 2. Can the said
Joint convention so assembled iegally
declare a vacancy TO exist in the orc
of the governor OF the state of Colo
Tado upon the facts recited and sci
forth In the said Alexander report
"Interrogatory 3. Can the said
joint convention, In the pending CON
test proceedings. In the event Of a4ep-
tion of said Alexander report. lega
decide who Is entitled to the one Yf
governor OF Colorado, or does the con
stitution OF Colorado provide In such
event who Is entitled to such ofce.
and IL 50, what person Is so enti'ia4
pnder said constitution
After some preliminary discuss lg.
the court announced It's decision as il.-
lows:
The contest relates TO the o.fice 81
governor. IL Is common knowlrdza
that considerable time has been con-
sumed by the General Assembly b.
hearing this contest. and that the uai.
fare OF the public demands that TIE
controversy ue speedily settled. II su-
pears that members Of the Gen,Fal
Assembly desire to be advised a tU
the power and authority OF the Joins
convention 10 consider the Alexar ler
report, and that until the question j.
in some way satisfactorily RettEl
much time at least will be consuuad
in discussing the various phases of tIt
contest proceedings as presented b.
the respective reports. In short. ihg
General Assembly wishes to be ad
ylsed to its authority in disposinE ~
this contest. so that intelligent action
may be taken. or action which might
be Illegal prevented.
Certainly. under these conditiUnF
grave questions are presented Which
vitality affect the public interests. and
which this court. by virtue OF the 500.
stitutional provision referred To-
should aid as far as possible In hayas
speedily and correctly settled. The
majority Of the court Is of the opinion
that questions are presented uFgn
which an opinion should be given. -
come. then. 20 brief consideration u
the questions propounded.
The constitution provides that con
tested elections for tho Office OF g1f-
ernor shall be determined by the iso
houses on Joint ballot In such mailer
as may be prescribed by Iaw-see On
3. article 4. The provisions OF the aw
which have been passed In pursua4ce
OF the constitutional prov sf6n are
brief and clear. They PR scribe the
manner Of initiating the contest. the
various steps which shall b. aiken
ana the rules to be observed In con
sueting the contest. They will bo
found In sections 1867 TO 1000. j Mills
Annotated Statutes. both inclusive.
Neither the constitution nor statutory
provisions on the subject contemplate
giving any power or authority 10 the
General Assembly to decide any hing
more than the Issues between the con
testor and contestee. and render ladg-
meut accordingly. We must. therefore.
answer the first and second int. .rroga-
tories Ia the negative
This conclusion renders II unneces-
saFy 10 answer OF enter upon a discus
sion Of the legal questions involved in
interrogatory three, because the condi-
tinns cannot arise in the present con
test proceedings which render that In
quiry pertinent to their determination.
Although a majority only uf the
court is of the opinion that the qaes-
tions proponnded should be answered.
II having been determined that they
should be. In the decision answering
them We are in full accord