New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-08-02
Settled Practice Calls for Writ.

\
were denied by the two state courts.
Settled Practice Calls for Writ.
Whether the rights asserted have a real
basis I'm the Constitution and laws OF the
United States is the criterion by ~nlI aHf
error shall be allowed. Under the set-
tied practice, II the Justices 10 whom me
application is made believe that the exist
ence or non-existence OF me d Iasht' the
writ should be allowed. we thIlh tha'
Is the situation here. -
The questions raised do not seem 10 De
determined or settled by any PleEtouo
decision of the United states supreme
Court. some OF the opinions OF the court
contain expressions which tend 10 sss-
tain the contentious or the piallltllls.
Whether In view OF the facts In me ca l'
I'm which these expressions occur they
should be regarded as denoerate am, am,
controlling ought not to be deteril u! a.
otherwise than by the court itsel, IL -
conceded that the questions die M ho 20
tant and of large concern, ana we naNc
concluded that those who present theIx
are fairly entitled to the ludgrn, III q.
the court which by the Ionsut I t.oIi -
made the final arbiter OF an Gnu IN his
arising under that instrument =" ~,
situation we think the writ Oh eI'o'
should be allowed. - t.orfare
But as courts are reluctant TO inte ,ians
with the ordinary course %, as the
whether primary or other"lSe, iIo,,Tt
rights asserted are not clear Ply 49,
fui and az the injury ana puDIc ei,-
yenience which would result roin t",oiIv
persedeas or any IKE ordep' c ~ should
Ea affirmed or the writ OF error w.
missed would equal the nluIy w on.
otherwise would ensue' we t"'It hno,,id he
oersedeas or kindred order shou'u 'e
granted. ,u, thu deci-
.,o, y, Justices Van Devanter and PIT
nav WAS regarded as of unusual III"
nortance because It would LEAD 70
hr,rgine before the United States SUI
nreme Court for the first time the ques-
t,on Of whether II had jurisdiction In
tho matter Of choosing presidential
electors. While Marlin f. Olfhsteu
and n. r. Hite. counsel for the Tart
men. insisted that their case lnVolNeu
federal questions. +. 3. Jackson ana
l.. w. Keplinger, counsel TOT inc
Roosevelt followers, declared emphau-
cally thai the remedy for any EVIL arts
ing under the state laws for such elec-
lions Law entirely with the state.
WHY the case was regarded in Kan
sas as n paramount issue, threatening
the existence of the regular Repupll-
can ticket on the ballot, was explained
Mt length by Mr.. Hite. He said that
there were twenty names in all on the
ballot as candidates for Presidentil
electors. and as they all appeared un-
der the emblem OF the Republican
marty many of the voters would be
confused.
Taft Men Deprived Of Suffrage.
II was further the Intention of the
| Roosevelt followers in Kansas, he de-
clsred. 10 place the name OF the eX-
President and his running mate under
the emblem OF the Republican party In
| the November election should tho
Roosevelt electors receive majority
OF votes in the coming primaries.
/ Through this move any citizen OF Kan
sas who wanted 10 vote for william IL.
Taft In November was entirely de-
prlved OF registering a vote for the
candidate OF his choice.
! The decision OF the two justices Of the
Supreme Court of the United States
was received with marked satisfaction
by the lawyers for the Taft men, and
CONGRESSMAN jackson and Mr.. KEEP
linger, their opponents, congratulated
them on the victory. All day kilograms
were coming from Kansas inquiring as
TO the progress OF the case, and toward
| evening dispatches were received by
Justice Pltney urging an early decision.
so that the ballots, which had been
held up, might be printed. The mat
ter appeared TO be so involved that
both Justices piled the attorneys with
questions 10 bring light into the tangl".
rs not this the situation" asked
Justice Van Devanter, turning TO Con-
gresham Olmstead. your petition
ers declare they will be compelled
either TO vote for candidate for Pres
ident for whom they do not wish I"
vote or not at all through the failure
OF the Kansas courts to hear their case
on its merits?"
Mr.. Olmsted assented, but Congress
man Jackson broke In, saying:
"All OF the fraud charged against
these respondents is the violation Of Il
political promise. and all the harm they
claim to have suffered Is that they
were politically deceived. That is ALL"
do you mean TO imply asked Jus
tice Van Devanter. that no fraud can
result from the violation OF a political
promise In distinction from the viola
ton Of any other promise?"
"Oh no. replied Mr.. Jackson, but a
political promise IL one which the
courts in the very nature of things
| cannot enforce.
TO Mr.. Jackson's contention that the
state alone could have jurisdiction in
the matter Justice Pitney suggested
that while the state determined the
method OF choosing electors the federal
government might protect the voter in
his right under the state law.
Would you contend" asked Justice
Pitney. that the state of Kansas might
determine to choose electors in a con-
test OF fraud, or that an elector In
Kansas might be chosen as the result
! of a battle?'
The state had provided the election
laws. Mr.. Jackson replied, and 1t had
offered remedies which the petitioners