Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1909-01-10
RYAN CREDITED WITH CHANGE
Peerless Leader Believed to Have
Turned Down Plan.
ATTORNEY GENERAL ON THE CASE
Thompson Furnishes Secretary of
State JunISiu with Opinion Up
holding CanvnssinE Boards
Right 60 Canvass Vote.
frrom a stnff CorrosnondentN IN

LINCOLN, Jan. s-(Speciai.)-"I do not
think the democrats of this legislature will
recanvass the votes on the constitutional
amendments. Very little is 20 be gained
by such action and there is a growing sem
timent against 1t among the members OF
the majority. ] shall be much surprised
Tuesday II the result Of the Joint session
is in favor of the plan sprung by Senator
Ransom upon the legislature"
This view was expressed today by Rep
resentative Fred Humphrey OF Lancaster
county, son of one of the pioneer depio-
Gratis of the state capital, O. n. Humphrey.
and young politician who has, It is be-
lieved, received his inspiration from Fair
view. During the joint session for the
inaugural ceremonies Mr.. Bryan was seated
by Mr.. Humphreys side, and there are
numerous other indications that he may
be the mouthpiece of the Nebraska leader,
who has become frightened by the lineup
against him in the preliminaries and will
undertake to influence the house members
at least, IL he cannot the senate to follow
his desires
Representative Humphrey was busily
engaged in the office of the secretary of
state during the entire afternoon looking
up the record on the amendment matter
ana consulted a number of original docu-
ments to become fortified when the bat
tie begins again on the floor in join ses-
sion.
Senator Ransom sprung the matter in
caucus when the senators had been called
together for another purpose" said Rep
resontative Humphrey. "They were un-
prepared and were taken by surprise,
without due time to investigate You
will find a great change in sentiment by
Tuesday"
This is but one indication of the atti-
tude of the democrats to the plan to
seize the court, which at the outset had
the full consent of Governor Shallen-
berger, as the Douglas county senator
stated in caucus. 1t indicates a decided
split among the leaders of the party and
is but one of the uppercuts in store for
the big chief from the metropolis.
Opinion of Attorney General.
Attorney General Thompson, In opin-
ion written in answer to inquiry from
the secretary of state, today said the state
Canvassing board had a legal right to can
vass the vote on constitutional amendments.
The opinion discusses the question at
length In part the attorney general says:
From the provisions OF the law quoted
It is evident that the state Canvassing
board is the only body having jurisdiction
over the returns on constitutional amend
ments, presidential electors, Judges Of SUI
preme and district courts and regents of
the State university. These provisions OF
! the law are meaningless unless they fix
upon the Board of State Canvassers the
duty to canvass the returns on constitu-
| tlonal amendments. If not. why does the
law place these returns in the custody of
that board and then prescribe the proce-
dure and their duties In making the can
vass? IL the legislature had intended that
| the returns on constitutional amendments
and the officers designated above should be
canvassed by that body It would have so
provided, and made the abstracts of votes
cast therefor returnabe to the speaker OF
the house Of representatives,. In other
words, instead of providing that the county
clerks OF the various counties make return
| to the Board of State Canvassers in the
manner provided by section &c. chapter
XVI, Compiled Statutes of 1906 It would
have required them to make return to the
speaker of the house OF representatives in
the manner provided by section 81 OF the
same chapter, which deals with an entirely
different class Of officers
Certainly It cannot be contended with
reason, that the legislature required the
return nthese amendments to he placed
in the hands of the board of state canvass
ers, who had the exclusive right to can
vass the returns on a specific class of Of
ficers, and at the same time intended that
the Legislature itself should have the right
to make the canvass thereon when its
jurisdiction TO make a canvass Is limited
to an altogether different class of officers
designed by another provision Of law. No
. I prOyisioD Ia aIf Il h.
tion or the statutes, which directly or in
directly places the returns on constitutional
amendments in the hands of the speaker OF
the house of representatives or which d.
rectly or indirectly authorizes the legisla.
ture to canvass the same.
/ Never Before Questioned.
THE board OF state canvassers has can.
vassed the returns on constitutional amend
ments continuously for a period of twelve
years. It's right to so act has been con,
, ceded and acquiesced in by the various gov,
ernors and public officials Thus the Law
comforting such authority upon the boart
? OF state canvassers has received practica
p construction by the officials and variou,
departments Of state for a long term OF
years.
'Under the statement submitted by yo,
, the result OF the vote on these amendment
was duly certified to the governor and h,
made finding that they had carried anC
issued his proclamation declaring them par
OF the constitution of the state He ther
appointed four judges Of the supreme cour
as rpovided In the one relating 10 judlcla
powers. In view Of the fact that there 4
no express provisions for the canvass o
the erturns on constitutional amendment :
that there is no board or tribunal to whcl
the statute directs these returns to be mad
other than the state canvasing board, an,
having due regard to the contemporaneou
construction placed upon the law by tn
officers Of the state for twelve years an,
for the other reason herein pointed out.
' conclude that the board Of state canvasser
was the legal constituted body to max
the canvass of returns on said constitu
tional amendments and that its acts an
findings In the premises as well As thos