The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-11-28
SUPREME COURT WISDOM.

|
Once again the Supreme court of the
state has shown commendab1e discre-
ton and wisdom in failing to mix up in
| political imbroglio, and for the very
good reason that there are no provisions
! of law covering the case at issue which
would warrant the court in taking any
kind of action in the premises. And it
must be extremely satisfying to most
Kansans to know that their court of
| last resort is free from any suspicion of
political influence.
If the Kansas primary and election
laws are deficient in providing a way
by which alleged wrongs under them
can be taken to the courts, remedial
legislation should be enacted. But
until that is done, the Supreme court
is showing its usual admirable balance
in refusing to attempt to correct these
legislative errors. One of the common
and forceful criticisms of late years
against many of the superior courts
of the country is that their judges
have been altogether too free to
usurp legislative functions and actually
create law as well as interpret it. But
no charge of this kind can lie against
the Kansas Supreme court. which has
taken its place of late years in the
front ranks of the courts Of the entire
country.
OF course, there is considerable
criticism of the refusal of the court to
entertain the suit of Mr.. Capper's at
torneys for a re-examinatfon of re-
jected ballots in certain counties and
the counting of such of them as might
be valid, but which were not so CLASH
fed by the election judges. And, as is
generally the case in all matters in
which humans are interested, this
criticism comes from those men and
newspapers that have heretofore been
loudest in their praise of the Supreme
court; who have styled it as one of the
most progressive and fair-minded judi
ciaI tribunals in the land. The critics
are saying that in the case in point the
court failed to be as progressive as
have courts in similar cases in Mas
sachusetts and other states.
These same critics, though, were en-
thusiastic in their praise of the court
for its decision in the famous Roosevelt
electors case. Some of them even went
so far as to state that the court sus-
tanned the contention of the Bull
Moosers that their electoral candidates
had a right to a position in the Re-
publican ticket on the Kansas ballot.
To be sure, the court decided no such
thing 1t merely declared that it was
without legal or constitutional power to |
entertain a consideration of the case. |
That is virtually it's decision in the re-
cent Capper case. The merits of the |
cases are in no way analogous, of course.
But in each instance the court declared |
itself powerless to act because of lack
of authority.
In the matter of court decisions, as
with everything else, 1t all depends, as |
far as critics are concerned, as to whose |
OK is gored. But the people of Kansas |
will not put much stock In the sugges-
ton of the critics Of the Supreme court
to the effect that its failure to entertain |
the Capper suit and issue the desired |
is an indication that the
court has sullied its fine reputation of
the past for being most progressive
judicial body. Such talk is all rot, and
Ill becomes those who make it, because
of the repeated endorsement they have
given to the excellent work that this
court has always accomplished.