The weekly Alaska citizen., 1919-05-19

parte."
 No officer mentioned in Sectior 110 is authorized to undertake to es tablish a rule of procedure to aup plement the existing law. nor. on the other hand. should he follow a course of action wholly unauthorized. tn doubtedly the house of represents lives will. as soon as 1t is advised oi the present emergency. determine by virtue of It's inherent power. a rule of procedure. if such be necessary whereby all rights of the petitioner will be entirely safeguarded. (Con gross will convene In special session on May 18th. 1s1s.)
 Counsel for petitioner states that the petition Is presented to the Judge of this Court upon telegraphic request by petitioner to his agent Henry T. Ray. He insists that. since there is no cOntestee, subpoenas should issue and testimony should be taken ex parte. Under what rule of reason or principle of law this con. tentiOn is based counsel does not state nor am 1 able to discover. Counsel indicates that petitioners contest was recently filed. The date is not given in the petition. Had Charles A. Suizer lived and had be become member of congress" he would have had thirty days after the service upon him of notice of con. test to answer suoh notice and serve a copy of his answer upon the con. testant. No testimony would have been taken prior to tho serving of the answer unless perchance upon the stipulation of contestant and The petition Is unac. by any notice of contest; there is no service. Ror could there be at tho present time: there Is no issue Joined: there Is no notice to take depositions with the proof or acknowledgement of the service thereof. No officer mentioned in Section no, in the event he should Issue subpoenas and take testimony. could comply with the provisions of Section 121 in taking testimony. nor could be comply with Sections l25 and 126 in transmitting the same to the clerk of the housa of representa-. lives.
 Counsel also states one oe the for petitlouing to taks testi. nony before the Judge of this Court s that certain legal questions could be determined by the Court. Coun. 'el nust be under a misapprehension the functions and duties of the officers mentioned in Section no in the matter of taking deposi. ions in contested-election cases. in -s Howell. 1ls Federal. page 4S7, the Court said. in passing upon an ap. ,lication for the production of papers ,nder Section l23, where notice of contest had been given to tho con. 'estee and where notice of applica- ion as above had been served upon ,ontestee:
 '1The authority given by the sec. ion of the Revised Statutes referred @ cannot be questioned. and l can. ,ot refuse an application which is prot within its terms. It Is inmate 'iai whether an Issue has yet been made up or not. because if testimony were being taken would have no light to pass upon its relevancy or rreievaney.~
 The statement Tt is immateriai an issue has yet been made lp or not" refers to the provision n Section 123. reading:
 '4The of1lcer shall have power to cequire the production of papers." :.
 If the house of representatives 'hall prescribe rule of procedure R keeping with petitioners conten. lon. and an application meeting the thereof Is presented to m officer mentioned in Section no. ,ubpoenas should issue as a matter # course.
 It necessarily follows from the that the application of the petitioner to the Judge of this Court, who Is one of the officers in Section no. 10 issue to the persons named ln 'aid petition to appear and testify at p. m. on the 2lst day of May, 1919, must be denied. for the same is pre- nature and the omcer Is without in the premises.
 CHARLES p. BUNNEIL.
 District Judge.
 Dated May l6. 1919.