The Holly chieftain., 1905-03-17
ADAMS OR PEABODY?
LEGISLATURE MUST SAY WHICH
Cannot Legally Declare the Election
void-Answer Of Supreme Court
to interroQatories.


Denver, March 14.-The Supreme
Court of Colorado yesterday afternoon
handed down its decision in the mat
ter of the interrogatories propounded
to 1t by the General Assembly. 1t is
held that the duty of deciding the con-
test for the governorship now before
the assembly must be decided by that
body.
They were as follows:
"Interrogatory ]. 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 recited therein?
'lnterrogatory 2. Can the said
joint convention so assembled legally
declare a vacancy to exist in the Office
of the governor of the state of Colo
rado upon the facts recited and set
forth in the said Alexander report?
"Interrogatory 3. Can the said
joint convention, in the pending con-
test proceedings, in the event of adop-
tion of said Alexander report, legally
decide who is entitled to the Office of
governor of Colorado, or does the CON
stitution of Colorado provide in such
event who is entitled to such office,
and if so, what person is so entitled
under said constitution?
After some preliminary discussion,
the court announced its decision as fol-
lows:
1.-The contest relates to the office OF
governor. 1t is common knowledge
that considerable time has been con
sumed by the General Assembly in
hearing this contest, and that the vel
fare of the public demands that the
controversy ne speedily settled. 1t ap-
pears that members of the General
Assembly desire to be advised as TO
the power and authority of the joint
convention to consider the Alexander
report, and that until the question is
in some way satisfactorily settled
much time at least will be consumed
in discussing the various phases of the
contest proceedings as presented by
the respective reports. In short, the
General Assembly wishes to be al
vised to its authority in disposing of
this contest, so that intelligent action
may be taken, or action which might
be illegal prevented.
grave questions are presented which
vitally affect the public interests, and
which this court, by virtue of the con
stitutional provision referred to,
should aid as far as possible in having
speedily and correctly settled The
majority of the court is of the opinion
that questions are presented upon
which an opinion should be given. We
come, then, to a brief consideration of
the questions propounded.
"The constitution provides that con-
tested elections for the Office of gov
ernor shall be determined by the two
houses on joint ballot in such manner
as may be prescribed by law-section
3, article 4. The provisions of the law
which have been passed in pursuance
of the constitutional provision are
brief and clear. They prescribe the
manner of initiating the contest, the
various steps which shall be taken
and the rules to be observed in con-
ducting the contest. They will be
found in sections 1867 to 1GG0, Mills
Annotated Statutes, both inclusive.
} Neither the constitution nor statutory
provisions on the subject contemplate
giving any power or authority to the
General Assembly to decide anything
more than the issues between the con-
testor and contestee, and render judg-
ment accordingly. We must, therefore,
answer the first and second interrega-
tories in the negative.
This conclusion renders it unneces-
sary to answer or enter upon discus
sion of the legal questions involved in
interrogatory three, because the condi-
tions cannot arise in the present con-
test proceedings which render that In
quiry pertinent to their determination.
although majority only of the
court is of the opinion that the ques-
tions propounded should be answered,
it having been determined that they
should be, in the decision answering
them we are in full accord"