The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1907-01-04

y
10 the suppression of nsurrection
could not be questioned BY the Other /
departments OF government; in other
words that the power OF the governor
under our constitution was absolutely
such IS the governor himself might
determine THIS places life, property
liberty and practically everything else
entirely within the discretion OF one
man and SO long as our courts opin-
ion remains uEchalleneed, IL seems toll
be the law IN Colorado at least.
IN 1904 Governor Peabody was a.
candidate for reelection. within ten
days OF the day of election the signs
OF the times indicated Peabodys de-
feat and particularly by reason OF
the great feeling against Kim IN the
city and county of Denver. rour days
before the election petition entitled
the People VS. John Tool ct all, was
filed IN the supreme court, alleging
the existence Of q huge conspiracy to
carry the election by fraud and force
that the legally constituted autthori
ties were powerles TO defeat the con
spiracy. The relator in the case was
Governor Peabody who sued in the
/ name OF the state at the instance OF
ilt HliOIlitN EtIltTd. 10 lillS Dttll
tion the defendants demurred Our
supreme court held. (See reported
case SO Pac. 222-29) that IL had a pow
er and jurisdiction above and beyond
that expressed in the constitution
which il called a high perogative'
power; aud it therefore assumed 2
exercise that power in this particular
case. Respondents offer to answer
and disprove the charges was denied
and a sweeping writ of injunction was
issued against all election officials re
\ straining them from conducting the
election except as provided by the in
junction. It appoipted It's own off.
ers called Supreme Court watchers
who took charge of the election, not
withstanding which the Republican
/ ticket was defeated in tbe city and
i county of Denver by an average mn
joiity of $500. Proceedings ia con
plaint against whom, generally speak
of the election officials the chief com
I plain against whom, generally speak
ing, was that they obeyed the re
quirements OF the law, instead of the
] mandate OF the supreme court. Not
withstandIne this the jails were filled
With men who were punished for con
/ temp, some of them by fines oi
81 ,000 coupled with years imprison
: ment. Scores of ballot boxes were
( opened by the supreme court and all
! the ballots rejected by IT, The elec
tion commission was thereupon com
|, nianded to certify the election withou
counting the ballots thus opened ant
rejected; and this they We're compell
} ed to do as a result without contest
} without any regard whatever TO thS
] election laws, or the constitutions
provisions affecting the suffrage The
, verdict OF the people was reversed
I .the political complexion OF the legis
(; 1iiture was changed, and the suprem'
fcoaiit, as n returning board beeam'
| Hhe absolute dictator of the election
I from whose depision there was ant
| could be no appeal.
I At the same time the state return
+ ing board announced itself 20 be
4 judicial body, not bound, by the cert
fiad returns OF the various county OF
ficers II held that ii could go Dehin'
Y the returns and certify the election 0
I whoever IL might choose regardless
y of the official abstracts OF the vote
cast. Hitherto it had been suppose'
y, to be body without discretion. who's
? business was TO tabulate and an
l nounce results. A petition was pre-
| gented to the supreme court for
t mandamus compelling this board Z
Z tabulate and certify results, The pet
( tion was denied the court holding i
I substance that the election boar
9 could do as il pleased and was no
e subject TO any judicial control As
. result, two senator's, whose election
4 was absolute and beyond dispute
J were denied certificates and the cert
flcates given to their defeated con
= petitor thus changing the politica
y complexion of the body.
y AT an election held in May last /
/ the city OF Denver. certain franchise
!, were carried by fraud. The distric
i court acting upon the authority of tn
u People VS.. Tool assume jurisdictio
/ 10 Investigate the election, whersupo
s the supreme court was asked to PR
Y hibit such action. In People vs.. Di
5 trict court, Sc Pac. 81, a majority {
l. that court held that its powers wei
l. those of the old Kings Bench of En-
G land and itE orerogatives were e.
't elusive Hence the district court coHl
n not do what the supreme court ha
n done, and IN this instance the suprem
l. court itself would not do what IL ha
e previously done upon the applicable
e OF other parties. II was s;gnincai
s. that the influences which successfu
l. IN invoked the Jurisdiction of the 5
e preme court IN the Tool case Wei
d precisely those which asked II to pr
e hibit the district court from the do
a the same thing In 1906,
al The Rocky Mountain News az
y, Denver Times. owned by Senator
Is NJ. Patterson. very vigorously cri
9, cised the action OF our supreme cou
Is in the Johnston case. and said that
It action was taken from political m
IL tiyes. AS a result. Senator Patters'
IL was haled to the bar of that tribun
n for contempt He confessed the pub
cation concerning the subject OF I
~ proceeding. and in his answer $
4, forth in full the facts Upon viii
n they were based, aud offered TO pro
le their truth. The offer was denied
"a the court which promptly fined h
ct $1,000 for contempt aud virtually
en- nounced the doctrine that the coul