The Topeka state journal., 1906-06-21
ROSE DENIES IT.
Kansas Mayor Claims He Was
Not Ousted.
Had Resigned and Therefore
Couldn't Be Put Out.
ANS WEIR is FILED.
Was Written by John H. At
wood of LeavenwOrth.
Claims That Supreme Court
Writ Is Void.

William ". Rose, the ousted and re-
elected mayor Of the city of Kansas
City, today filed with the supreme court
his answer to the contempt proceedings
which have. been instituted against him
by Attorney General c. c. Coleman, on
account of Roses alleged violation of
the order of the court against his as
Stunning the office of mayor.
The answer sets forth that the "ous-
ter of the supreme court could not
"oust,'' because Rose had already re-
signed the office, and that Rose is not
in contempt of court because the custer
order was void.
John H. Atwood, the big Democratic
lawyer of Leavenworth, prepared the
answer and 1T is full Of Mr.. Atwood's
usual eloquent phrases. 1t is signed.
however, by the following attorneys:
c. F. Hutchings, N. Cree, D. E. Bird
and John H. Atwood.
The answer first denies the right of
the court to take jurisdiction in the
case, and says that Mr.. Rose, by virtue
of having filed the answer, valves none
of the rights which he claims under the
law.
After reciting the history of the case,
and giving in detail the manner in which
Rose resigned from his office and was
reelected over E E. Nenard at a spec
ial election, the answer goes on to say:
Defendant further says that the
said judgment did not in fact oust or
exclude him from the office of mayor,
or create any vacancy therein because
of lack of power in said court in that
action to render judgment and because
he did not, at the time of said judgment
hold said office, and because at that
| time there existed vacancy in the
same: nor did said Judgment in fact
| forfeit the title of said defendant to
/ id 0fff0n dnnPTdanf the col i'll o1n0-
| ton of pril, 1906, because said title,
prior to that time, had been resigned
/ by this defendant; and that after said
/ office had. as a. result Of said resigna-
/ ton and .its acceptance, become vacant
4 the only Jurisdiction that this court had
/ in said matter was to determine upon
whom the costs of said action should
l fail since the portion of said action that
contemplated the removal of defendant
from office had been accomplished by
1 his voluntary act
Defendant further respectfully shows
to the court that If it intended said
| judgment of April g. 1905. to mean that
it precluded the defendant from tax
\ ing and holding the Office of mayor un-
der and by virtue of a new election
such as that held on May s. 1906 or
| that it rendered him ineligible and dis
i qualified him from taking and holding
said Office held under and by virtue of
such new election, it is. to that extent
void, even If the court had had juris-
diction in said case, because it is be-
yond any issue made by the pleadings
| in the said action and because 1t is in
excess of the authority and jurisdic-
ton of this court in the said action, or
| in any action or proceeding; and de-
fendant says that if such be the pro-
per construction of said judgment. 1t
| is void because its purpose would be to
4 deprive this defendant of his lawful
right of eligibility to Office and i'm
poses disqualification to hold Office
and would be in effect a limited bill Of
| attainder not authorized by any stat
| ute of the state of Kansas and in viola
! ton of the constitution thereof: and to
attempt to enforce it by judgment or
sentence of imprisonment either abso-
! compelling the payment of a fine would
be to deprive this defendant of his Of
| flee and his liberty without due pro-
cess of law. all in violation of the pro-
visions of the fourteenth amendment to
/ the constitution of the United States.
the protection of which this defendant
| expressly claims
Defendant further says that all his
acts above set forth were done with
| out any intention to embarrass the ad-
ministration of justice as It proceeded
from this or any court, and without any
intended dtsrespect to this court, and
were all done by him in good faith and
| in full belief that such acts were auth
orized by law, and were not in dis
regard Of or in disobedience to any law
fu1 judgment by this court rendered
which belief was the result of advice
and counsel given him by those learn
ed In the law"