The Cordova daily times., 1917-05-03
COERCION USE ) BY COURT TO
 SEAT SULzER

winding up with the statement that the canvassing board did give the cer tificate to Chas. A. Sulzer but not "before being coerced by the peremp tory writ of mandamus so issued and signed by the said Robert w. Jen, nings."
 After the review of the case up to that time Wickersham proceeds to show that said Sulzer wrongfully and intending to secure an unlawful ad. vantage in said suit, and we'll know ing this party to be the real contest ant in this suit brought his suit against the said canvassing board and unjustly in violation of the law re- fused to make his contestan a party to the said suit or to give this contest ant any notice of the pendency there of or any opportunity to appear there in and to defend his right"
 Mr. Wickersham then states how Judge Jennings was formerly a can didate for election to Congress in opposition to him, that he is bitter political partisan opponent, and that John F. Pugh, a member of the can vassing board, is the brother in law of said Robert w. Jennings" Con tinuing, the petition says: That both said Jennings and said Pugh well knew at all the times when the said suit by the said Sulzer against the said canvassing board was pending that this contestant was a necessary and proper party in interest in said court, but both wrongfully and intend ing to permit an unlawful and unjust advantage to be taken of this con testant and to have his right to said office unlawfully taken from him in his absence did all the matters and things done by them or either of them"
 Mir. Wickersham claims that the district court at Juneau acquired no jurisdiction, power or authority either in equity of law, in said cause, and he further claims that the pleadings did not state any cause of action and that the members of the canvassing board were not real parties interested therein. The petition further shows that the contestant had not been no tifiad of tho nrocaadipoc ond aIco tbof action was brought in the court when it appeared on the fact of the plead ings that plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law was afforded by vari- ous acts of congress authorizing the trial of such actions by the house of representatives.
 Wickersham declares that the only law relied upon by Judge Jennings as authority for issuing the writ of man. damus was the one which provides that where no official ballots have been provided the judges of election shall certify to the facts which pre- vented the use of official ballots, and the petition goes on to state that the canvassing board then declared their intention "to so correct and amend said canvass and compilation so as to apply the same rule of all re- turns before them, but the petition proceeds" said Robert w. Jennings, judge, aforesaid, so unlawfully and un- justly extended his writ of mandamus to prevent said truthful statement" l" After reciting the fact that the court ordered a certificate forthwith 'in the usual form," Wickersham says that the law does not provide any form for such certificates and that the per emptory rule was unlawful and was so issued to hinder and prevent the can wasting board from reciting the truth and the facts.'
 Other points in the protest are:
 That Chas. A. Sulzer = with in tent to defraud the electors of Alas ka - purposely and fraudulently con fined his attack and objections to the returns so pending we'll knowing there were the same or similar defects in other precincts which returned ma jorities for him which if rejected un- der the same rule of law would re- duce the total vote cast for him, said Sulzer, below that cast for the con testant."
 MT Wickersham then proceeds to name some other precincts in which occurred the same irregularities" as those noted in the precincts directly concerned in the Juneau court pro- ceedings, and the details are gone into at some length. In the following paragraph Wickersham shows that the same irregularities occurred in the Utica precinct in the legislature cleo tion and that if the same rule had been applied as the Juneau court ap- piled in the delegate case, Reed should have been seated instead of Corrigan, but it was not. The petition also deals with the election of Murray over Holland, when Murray was seated ac- cording to the law depended upon Sul- ger, Holland would have been seated.
 Mir Wickersham further states that in Eagle and Fort Gibbon soldiers to the number of thirty-eight voted who were not lawful voters.