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

ers thereby affected, and We're written I
with the sole intention and purpose Of
arousing the voters Of the Progressive
party In Idaho to what the result of |
said decision would be In the event |
they did not fully comprehend its sig |
nificance and to urge the voters to
avoid the effect Of the decision by
writing in the names of the presiden-
tial electors Of the said Progressive
party on the blanks left on the ticket
Of said Progressive party. There was
no intention to impede the administra-
ti0n Of Justice nor could this have been
accomplished for the reason that the
decision had already been rendered by
tire court, and for the further reason
that had the decision been in favor IF
the Progressive party and had permit
ted the printing Of the names upon Its
ballot, no injustice would have been
done to any voter Of no matter what
political faith Ia the state of Idaho.
| The defendants aver that they had
no intention of publishing any mat
/ ters concerning said cause while said
cause was pending; that they were no.
lapprised that d motion for rehear-
ing had been filed in said case until
i StaNGi tilt slPEtlf tiettt
been made and that as soon as they
learned Of such application for relear-
ling. they Immediately desisted from
i publishing any editorial comments on
the matter until after the said motion
for rehearine had been denied by tile
4 court. that defendants believed and
i therefore allege that said motion for
a rehearing filed on the 18th day Of
q October, 1912, was a nudity and that
the court had no jurisdiction Of the
same for the reason that said relear-
ing was not applied for nor the mo-
!, ton therein filed by any party t. the
original action or the attorneys there
of but by one who was total stranger
To the suit, by one r. T.. TWeedy 81
Lewiston. Idaho. that tile said Tweedy
, does not appear from the records q
: 1.-THE court to have been entered If rec
} ord. as an attorney in the case. MOI
does il appear that there was any
], hearing had upon said motion for 4
rehearne, but on the contrary, tire de-
E PENDANTS aver that there was mot finac
sufficient elapsing between the decision
: of the court upon the original hear
ing and the time Of the filing Of tht
I rehearing To have given the court AM
power u stop the effect nt Its mandate
to the secretary Of state, directing
: him not to certify to the auditors 81
z tile different counties the electors ant
cengressnen as named on Tire Progress
: sVe ticket, nor did this court recall
its said mandate pending such pre-
tended rehearing. but on the contrary
that after the handing down Of tire de-
eision Of the court upon the orgina
Y hearing, to-wit on Oct. 9Th, 1912, TIL
secretary Of state Immediately acte
upon the said mandate Of the court am
| certified the ballots to the dlfferen
auditors Of the respective counties o
the state in obedience TO the said man
dat. That the defendants believed an
therefore allege that the different an
ditars Or the different counties imme
diately upon receipt ~ the certitie
ballots from the secretary Of stat
placed the same in the hands Of tn
printers iii their respective counties, y
reason Of the fact that the certifie
= copy Of the ballot for Ada county WI
: received by the county auditor on Ge
II. 1912. and was placed ilnnediatel
Z thereafter III the hands Of the printe'
:. with instructions that The ba'iHt MUS
y be iii Tire hands Of the auditor 1t leas
4 week before the day Of THE eleetial
J, That tho said ballot for printing Wa
: received for Foise county IN the han9
:, ef the printer Oh Oct 18th; Adam
= county on Oct 18th, ard ia the etht
y counties Of the state from that time ~
le these being the closest counties 10 Il
y state eanital
> That even III the event that the pct
y ti0n On motion for releaiing had bee
s allowed on Oct 23 ta12. the date Il
said hearing was denied, i would hay
s been too late ta have nrofited TIE va
= ers who wished tn Sate for tie FRI
eressive party presidential electors az
congressman anything, and flat Il
court had no power to sfnp tho efet
Ss ton h. the rehearing OF case A.
e the Withholding Of the order 70 Il
y secretary Of state as u tile form q
IS, ballot should take or as t. what
g should contain and thai the court q
moi withhold such order hut that Il
e order and mandate Of this court VI
fully oheyed and complied with pfi
= to said date and was wholly beyai
q recall ay rehearins or otherwise a
=, the pretended rehehring Was a MULTI
|