Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1912-12-20

That the defendants believed that upon
the issuing of the mandate OF the court,
because Of the short time intervening
before the election was to be held and
the action Of the secretary OF state,
who acted upon advice by wire from
Lewiston. Idaho, where the court was
then in session, that the court itself,
and the secretary OF state, considered
the mandate final and acted there
under without waiting for the time pro-
vided by the rules Of the supreme
court, to- wit: twenty days in which a
rchearing might be applied for; and
that ii would have been physical and
mechanical impossibility to prepare
for and mold an election upon the day
provided by law, IL the court should
hand down decision on the sth day
of october In which right Of twenty
DAYS was open for the filing Of Pc
tition for rehearing which would bring
the matter, if the petition We're heard
the same day as filed, II filed upon |.
the last date, to-wit: the 2sth Of Oc- I
tober, and allowing fourteen days for
the publication Of the nominations as
REQUIRED by act Of the legislature passed
at the Tenth session. and approved (
March II. 1909, which would have nee
assitatad rho publication of the nom,- 7
nations running to the 9th day Of Nov K
an,her ar in other words, the publica- (
| tfaY would MT he completes until four .
DAYS after the election had been held |
n Ia further set forth that the court
.axing handed down its decision on
49, 4 1912. rehearing having been
/ filed on the 18th of October and the
reheaTing denied on the 23rd Of Octo-
] her the secretprv Of state had he
waited 10 obtain the mandate Of the
eo,,rt until the said 23rd day of Octo-
her would have been given but nine
aays in which to certify the ballots to
the auditors Of the respective counties
\ ~ nIaea tho said ballots lin the hands
- thf nrinters and to distribute them
4 IL the respective precincts III their
counties which would have been an
othar nhysieal and mechanical ilnpos-
etbilitv
The CONT could not by any posi-
thilitv have recalled tho action Of the
secretary Of state III certifying the bal
lots ~ the county auditors Immediately
Il mon reaejyirs, the wire from the court
81 Lewiston. Idaho. informing him that
A. mandate had been issued, because
that would have had the effect OF de-
rvi3,ins, tl,e voters OF the state Of Idaho
from voting at all on the 5th day Of
Noyan,bcr to12. which power the court
could rot exercise. The defendants
therefore believed that there was no
eanse penaing after the mandate had
been issued ~ the court on the Sth
: lay NJ October. 1912. and any rehear-
fina thereon would have been a work
: NJ snnereropation.
Defendants aver that the articles
j published In their paper We're published
/ with The honest belief Of their right g
r do so under the constitution OF the
United states and the state OF Idaho,
j that II, the right Of free speech, which
has been universally exercised by the
newspapers Of the United states IRON
i the time Of the adoption Of the consul
. tuition, IA reference 70 matters when
! have been finally ad1udieated IN the
: courts. and notleeablY IN the case az
i bar, mot only by the papers outside tae
1 state but by those WITHIN the state q
idaho.
Defendants aver that they believed n
good faith that II was their duty ana
/ trail iheN llaa i4si1A - - go