Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1920-08-25
Injunction Sought
! Against Colby
In Petition.
PRECEDENT FOR
ACTION ASKED
Justice Siddons Waits
for Authorities on
Power to Act.

Opponents of woman suffrage TO-DAY
made their last stand against tne
nineteenth amendment when they ap-
peared before Justice Friedrich L. Sid
zdons in the District Supreme Court
and asked for an injunction to re-
estrain Secretary of State Bainorfdse
Colby from issuing a proclamation
declaring the amendment part OF
the federal Constitution, only to be told
sby the court that before such a rule
could issue, legal authoritiese must
be cited to show that the court had
power to act.
Attorney A. D. Smith, who appeared
for the anti-suffragists. promised to
look up precedents with bearing on
the point at issue, and Justlce oia-
dons said he would remain at the
courthouse the greater part OF the
day to act on the petition.
The court asked for further en-
lightenment on it's right to stay the
hand of the Secretary of State IN
issuing a proclamation of the certlh-
cation of federal amendment. he
said that the petition held the court
could and must examine into the pro-
ceedings of state legislative bodies,
properly constituted. but he held that
action should be taken only after
lnOTOQSH lHNeStiSdtlOA VI lhS SAtu
alton.
Attorney Explains.
Attorney Smith said that the relief
prayed for was only for rule to
summon the Secretary of State to
show cause why a restraining order
should not be granted against his is
suance of the proclamation. but
Justice Siddons still held that he
would not summon the Secretary into
court without further consideration.
The plaintiff of record in the action
filed is Charles S. Fairchild OF NeW
York, who says he is acting in behalf
of the members of the American Con-
stitutional League. composed of cltl-
zens of Arkansas, Massachusetts,. Mis-
souri,. New Jersey, New York, Penn
syIvania. Rhode Island and virginia,
and which was organized in s4317.
The bill covers more than ten type
written pages. and after quoting at
length from the federal Constitution
. to support it's argument that suffrage
is matter that should be left to the
state individually, it cites a part OF
the state constitution Of Tennessee 70
show that the present session OF the
legislature there had no right to act
:. sue had not been submitted to a popu-
lar vote.
Statements in Bill.
The bill then continues as follows:
Your petitioner AYERS that the
chancery court of Davidson county,
Tenn. has issued a temporary re-
sstraining order directed to the gov
president Of the senate of the state
legislature of the state of Tennessee
and the speaker of the house of repre-
sentatives of said legislature. enjoin-
ing them from certifying to defendant
herein the passage or ratification of
, the so-called nineteenth amendment
to the Constitution of the United
States. That under the laws of the
violation of any restraining order is
sued by a court of competent juriS-
diction is wholly null and void Of any
effect
Your petitioner is informed and be-
Jieves. and being so informed and be-
1ieving. AYERS that the governor of the
etate of Tennessee has certified to this
defendant the alleged ratificatio of
= the so-called nineteenth amendment to
the Constitution of the United States.
amendment, in violation of the injunc-
ton issued by the chancery court of
Davidson county. Tennessee.
Element of Uncertainty.
Unless restrained, the Secretary OF
State of the United States will i'm
mediately issue a proclamation de-
claring that the said suffrage amend
ment has been duly ratified by thirty
six states and has become a part of
the Constitution of the United
States. All of which would be to the
4Great injury of this complainant and
the members of the association for
whom he sues. and would bring an
additional element of uncertainty into
$fhe ascertainment of the citizens hav-
Ting the right of suffrage in the vari-
Gus states mentioned in the afore-
mentioned paragraph, whose consti-
buttons do not confer the right of suf-
4rage upon female citizens, and would
occasion multiplicity of suits to test
the result of the several elections
-held in these states. respectively.
Whereas in the orderly administration
of justice. and in accordance with
due process of law, the validity of
the ratification of said amendment
should be determined by a Competent
judicial tribAnal before the elections
which may then be held and conducted
IN accordance with the decision of
such tribunal"
Second Action by Petitioner,
The injunction asked for TODAY is
the second petition filed by the same
attorney in behalf of the same plain
1Iffs- A similar action was instituted
sn the District Supreme Court on July
z. directed against Secretary of State
Colby and Attorney General A. Mitch
ell Palmer. Justice Bailey, sitting at
that Time, oecilhed TO issue the rule.
An appeal was taken to the District
Court of Appeals where the action
now is pending and cannot be heard
until october, when the appellate court
meets.
Justice Bailey, in denying the in
function on July I3. although indi-
eating that the plaintiffs were not
sufficiently concerned to have stand
ing in court. decided the case upon
its merits. He said:
Courts will not go behind the
action of legislatures ia ratfying Tn
der the decision of the Supreme Court
in the prohibition case. legislatures
derive their power to ratify from the
federal Constitution, and courts will
not examine into their action and up
lnId state laws that restrict the pow
er derived from the Constitution"
Anti-Suffragists Bitter