Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 24.pdf/562

 The Kansas Electoral Case up, however, the Attorney-General of Kansas instituted mandamus proceed ings in the state Supreme Court for the purpose of compelling the county clerks to place the names of the eight Roosevelt electoral candidates upon the ballot. This was the court's opinion: The court is of the opinion that the district court of Harvey County had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed therein and to issue a restraining order pending its examination of the case. It is further of the opinion that such petition does not state a cause of action for a kind of fraud cognizable by a court of law or equity. Assuming the facts stated to be true they are political in their nature and the remedy of the plaintiffs is by political methods. The courts cannot be called upon to decide political matters further than the statutes clearly re quire, and the statutes of Kansas do not, ex pressly or by implication, authorize the grant ing of the relief asked of the district court of Harvey County. It is assumed that the district court of Harvey County will reach the same conclusion and dis miss the action pending before it. Upon such dismissal the occasion for the proceeding in this court will be removed and, consequently, this proceeding is dismissed.

The next day, when the proceedings in the Harvey County Court were head, this opinion was read and the defendants moved the dismissal of the action. Ob jecting, the plaintiffs set forth their claim of rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution. The opinion of the County Court was as follows: And thereupon the court, having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised concerning the said opinion of the Supreme Court of Kansas, finds that said objections, protest and claim of right under the Constitu tion and Jaws of the United States, should be and the same hereby is denied; And thereupon the court further finds that the plaintiffs herein have not stated a case by their petition cognizable in any court of law or equity, and it is, therefore, by the court ordered and adjudged that this action be, and the same is, dismissed.

519

But this was only the beginning of the rapid-fire proceedings. An appeal was immediately taken and on July 27 the Supreme Court of Kansas delivered this opinion : The court adheres to its ruling in the case of the State ex rel. v. County Clerks, et al., and since the questions involved in the present case are political and moral in their nature and the wrongs complained of are of a kind for which the courts are not authorized to grant relief, the judgment of the district court dismissing the action and denying the injunction must be affirmed. The court refrains from the ex pression of any opinion respecting the regularity or irregularity of the conduct of any political faction or organization.

So far the Taft forces had been defeated at every point. The day for the primary election was drawing very near and 300,000 ballots had to be printed. By stipulation it was agreed that the print ing of the ballots should be delayed still longer, pending an application to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of error. Justice Van Devanter, in whose cir cuit, the eighth, Kansas is included, was on his vacation in West Springfield, N.H. out of telegraphic communication. Justice Pitney, who was at his home in Morristown, N. J., seemed to be the only Supreme Court Justice available, and to him application for the writ was made on Monday, July 29. After tele graphing to Governor Stubbs for assur ance that the case would be preserved in statu quo, he set down argument on the application for the following Thursday. The hearing was held in the Federal Building, New York City. Justice Van Devanter arrived from New Hampshire the night before and sat with Justice Pitney. Representative Marlin E. Olmsted, of Harrisburg, Pa., and Dick R. Hite, of Topeka, argued for the writ; Repre sentative Frederick S. Jackson, of To