The Idaho Republican. [volume] (Blackfoot, Idaho) 1904-1932, 1912-11-08

way dliCttCu vi WIN q A WIN
tention made in this case by the Elec-
tors Progressive party, and that none
of the candidates making a defense
in this case make any claim that the
validity of the ticket named by the
st. Anthony convention, or that the
ticket so nominated has been filed
with the secretary of state for certi-
f~ication to the county auditors of the
respective counties for the purpose of
having the same printed on the bal
lots, but that the Electors Progress
sive party is a different organization
and is a different party from that
represented at the st. Anthony con-
vention, and that the ticket nominal
ed at the st. Anthony convention, was
not before the court, and made no
claim.
This statement shows the facts
with reference to the st. Anthony
convention and a further detail is UNI
necessary.
Critics Not Versed with Statutes.
1.-THE statements made by Mr..
Roosevelt and Mr.. Poindexter showed
very clearly that neither one Of
these gentlemen is acquainted with
the statutes of this state. That the
case under consideration only re-
quired the court to determine the va
lidity of the Electors Progressive
party ticket in accordance with the
statutes of this state.
IAN examination of the statute In
governing the nomination of candi-
dates by petition provides only for
such nomination of state officers, and
such state officers as are named by
the statutes are designated, and presi
Dental electors and congressman are
not named as such officers. When.
therefore, the ticket proposed was
presented to the court for ratification
the court was limited to the provis-
ion on the statute, and did recognize
the validity of such tickets to state
officers, but did not recognize the val
idity of the right to nominate electors
and congressman by petition. This
statute was clear and plain and needs
no explanation and should be con-
by it's own language, and the
court has no power to legislate into
the statute the nomination of candi-
which the legislature has not
fit to make a part of such stat
ute, and If these gentlemen had ever
read this statute, they could not have
made the statements as above re-
to unless such statements were
made for the sole and only purpose
Of deceiving and misleading those
who might read such statements as
to the facts and the law. I am firm
of the opinion that q man in pub
lie life and especially in the high
positions held by these two men,
not make in public speech or
the press, such statements
challenging the honesty and the JUS
ice of the judiciary of this state, or
he standing Of the supreme court Of
state of Idaho, when they had
not read the statute and did not
the facts or law.
Long Service on Bench.
~ have been on the supreme ben
n for six years. and my two assoc
ates have been there longer, Justice
having been on the bench
since Idaho was created a state,
this is the first time that an OPP
MON of the supreme court Of this
has eve been criticized in a
public or by anyone in the state or y
tut of it, which reflected upon it's
honesty, or ability in rendering decis-
ons in favor Of any litigant or per-
'on, or political organization. The
members of the supreme court of the
state of Idaho have a higher regard
or their obligation as public officials
Ind feel that they owe a higher duty
o the honor that has been conferred
upon them and the duty that they
1--WE to the PEOPLE of this state, and
hat such statements should be re-
'ented by the INTELLIGENT and honest
Of the state.
mo honorable lawyer would ever
such a statement.
mo man who has any respect for
lis honor and dignity, O. respect for
our form of government, or the Of
icers who administer the laws OF this
tate would make such a statement. J
II have not attempted In this
to recite all the facts or all
II the provisions of the statute, not
he authorities a s the opinion goes
INTO detail in these salient features
n order that the general public may
- NILZ4 . - $3.50 . = HsA-s4tt t+AA tFM a II