The Alaska daily empire., 1917-03-22

alternative writ of mandamus
 upon the members thereof, a cer-
 tificate of election was prcpar-
 ed by said board for issuance
 to Judge Wickcrsham as Dele.
 gate to Congress- from Alaska
 for the term beginning Mar. 3,
 1917, but that before said cer-
 tificate had been signed and
 issued by the board, the mem-
 bers thereof were served with
 the writ of mandamus herein"
 Your answer further ayers that the allegations of fact made in the petition as to the reasons why the precincts of Choggiung, Deering, Utica, Vault. Nushagak, Bonniheld and should not be counted were true, but that you considered that nevertheless said precincts should be counted and that you counted them.
 The plaintiffs demurred to your answer and that brought up the question as to whether or not on your answer the certificate should be issued to Wickersham or Sul- ger.
 It further appeared from your answer that you had no attorney. At the hearing on this demurrer, Mir. Davidson was present in and the court advised him to procure an attorney, wheroupon he stated:
 Your Honor, we have no inter- est in it any more than we would like the law point decided, and we have made our answer the best we could, and we have no other in- terest any more than to obey the orders of the Court, whatever they may be-"
 The court then heard argument on the demurrer in open court. and on the goth day of March. 191T in open court, made and filed its order herein, sustaining the demur- Ter of the plaintiff, and filed it's written opinion, and you have been furnished with copies of that opin- ion. I endeavored to make that opinion as full and clear as could.
 It appears that in the 649O votes which you have credited to James Wickeysham, and in the 6459 votes credited to Charles A. Sulzer and in the 1S4G votes credited to Lena Morrow Lewis, you counted votes from the precincts questioned in the petition and which the court has decided should be rejected and in. your answer you stated that you had completed the canvass.
 In view of the allegation of the answer and of what Mir. Davidson stated in open court the court con cluded that all other questions had been passed upon by you, and that you had indeed completed your canvass and compilation" and that the official tally sheets made up by the board were duly totaled and checked"
 Now you state in your communi- cation to me that some private cit izen has lately entered a protest of some kind and that there are some IRREGULARITIES which have not entered into the case that has been heard before me, and on which is- sued the alternative writ, and you ask my advice as to what you shall do.
 should be very glad, indeed, to advise you if l were at liberty to do so. but occupying the position which l do occupy, I. e.. being the Judge before whom the cause is pending. it would be very improper for me to take any such action. When a matter is pending in court, the Judge of that court is in no position to act as the legal adviser of one of the litigants, neither can he instruct them except through orders, judgments and decrees duly made.
 think, however, that I may say this much without transgressing the rules of propriety: The court will, if you so desire, treat your commun- ication as an amended and supple mental answer. If you desire it to be so treated you should serve q