The weekly true Democrat. (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1905-1912, 1908-10-23

The Supreme Court Of Florida handed
down It's opinion in the above contro-
versy on Thursday morning.
Like the celebrated case Of State ex
rel Drew against the State Board Of
Canvassers, decided by a Florida Su-
preme Court Of which the majority
were Republicans and involving the
election Of governor, Il Is a triumph
Of law over partIzan (there) fractional
Chere) jugglery, and win stand as an
other monument Of the safeguard Of
public welfare to be found IN the courts
against the evil consequences Of per-
sonal ambition, misguided Ignorance,
selfish purposes and blinded passion
when arrayed against right and duty.
One Of the main contentious on the
part Of Mr.. Mays before the Congress
siOnal Committee and Judge Malone,
has been that the basis for cOntesting
the legality Of q vote-the right Of any
person to vote-must be originated be-
fore the inspectors Of election by ehal-
lenge, and that the evidence upon the
issue Of such right must be taken by
the inspectors and certified to the coun-
ty committee as prescribed BY the stat
ute, and by that COMMITTEES TO the Con-
gressional Committee, and that in the
absence Of such an initiation Of the
issue the Congressional Committee has
no power to consider it; and that when
such an issue has been properly started
the power Of the Congressional Com
mittee, If any, is not to try It anew
upon what ever evidence il may see fit
to consider, but only as a tribunal Of
review and upon the evidence certified
to it as being that upon which Il has
been heard below. This position IS fully |
sustained by the opinion Of the Court.
While the tendency Of the opinion is
to sustain q further contention made on
behalf Of Mr.. Mays. that there cannot,
under our Constitution, be vested in a
Committee or other can
wasting board, the power TO pass upon
the legality of q vote, the court has not
found it necessary to go into this ques-
ton as fully as may have been deemed
necessary by some Its meaning seems
to be that the word FINAL" as used in
the primaryilaWs, should not be given
such a construction as indicates a legis-
lative intent to confer upon the com
mittee the judicial power which, IN the
Drew case mentioned above, it was held
could only be given TO a court.
The result is a rebuke TO the plans
and methods, and an overthrow Of the
views which Mr.. Kehoe and his follow
ers have labOred persistently to estab-
ilsh. We know now that under our pEi-
mary law canvassing boards are the
subjects of law and can be made to per-
form their public duties as preacribed
by law, and to keep within the lines Of
their limited powers. They are not the
licensed dispensers Of political favor
without restraint or accountability
the restraint placed by statute upon
their power being equally enforceable
with the punishment denounced against
certain criminal action upon their part.
We hope to give our patrons a synOp-
sis Of the opinion in our next issue.
We must content ourselves now with a
congratuIation to the public Of the SUI
premacy of law, and to Mr.. Mays upon
the proper, dignifed and manly course
he has pursed under such irritating cir
cumstances.
He is the lawful nominee in this Dis
trict, and will be elected.
-~~-~~-O~~-~~~-~