Mexican people and to wreck the program of Secretary Hughes at the approaching Pan-American Conference. President Obregon certainly succeeded in the former, but it looks as if he had done so at the price of violating international decorum, a procedure ordinarily alien to the LatinAmerican.

Secretary Hughes assures the world that he has no desire to interfere with the internal concerns of Mexico. All the protests have been lodged to let the government know what it must do to secure recognition. If this is all, it may be that the State Department, like Lady Macbeth, doth protest too much, for these protests have been going on several years.

Mexico has been compared to an ignorant beggar sitting on a bag of gold. The figure should now be extended so as to include the men fetching the gold from the bag. A man of some little prominence in this country recently demanded that the United States extend the Monroe Doctrine so as to protect investors in Latin-American countries. Query: Is the United States under any obligation, either under the Monroe Doctrine or the doctrine of moral right, to help those picking at the bag to get away with the plunder?

NEWS AND NOTES

EDITED BY B. F. WRIGHT, JR.
University of Texas

THE TEXAS SENATORIAL ELECTION

PREPARED BY THE EDITOR OF NEWS AND NOTES

It has become traditional in Texas that the primary election is the only one of importance, that when the Democrats have once decided upon their nominees nothing more remains to be said. Consequently it is worthy of note that for the first time in many years the general election for the office of United States Senator was very hotly contested. To be sure, the real reason for this close contest was the failure of the Democrats themselves to agree upon a candidate even after the primary election had been held. But it is nevertheless true that the election controversy was of sufficient importance and interest to warrant a review of its more important events.

A less noticed fact in the election was that only two parties had nominees on the ballot for any state office. This is the first time since 1878 (except in 1888) when there have not been three or more parties represented. It is easy to understand why the Greenback, Populist, Gold Democrat, and Prohibition parties have passed out, but the reasons are not so clear for the withdrawal or temporary absence of the Socialist and the Black and Tan Republicans.

The story of the election begins, of course, with the Democratic Primary. Originally there were seven men in the race for the Democratic nomination for Senator; later one of these withdrew. In the first Primary election the high men were Mr. Mayfield and Mr. Ferguson. In the run-off primary Mr. Mayfield won by a majority of 52,707 votes. Ordinarily this would of course have meant that Mr. Mayfleld had won the Senatorial race, but the events of the next few weeks demonstrated that there was to be strong opposition to Mr. Mayfield in the regular election. At a state conven

tion held on August 8th, the Republicans nominated Mr. E. P. Wilmot of Austin. The Democratic state convention was held September 5th and 6th and promptly demonstrated the presence of a division within the party on the issue of the Ku Klux Klan. By the use of steam-roller tactics the leaders of the convention prevented the adoption of resolutions opposing the Klan. On September 6th, the day the Democratic Convention closed, Dr. Wilmot declined the Republican nomination, leaving but one candidate in the field.

On September 9th the Anti-Klan Democrats of the State issued a call for a convention to be held in Dallas on September 18th. At this convention Mr. George Peddy was nominated as an Independent Democrat candidate for Senator on a strong Anti-Klan platform. However, it was found that in order to get Mr. Peddy's name on the ticket this group would have to secure the signatures of almost 50,000 petitioners who had not participated in the Democratic Primary election. As this was highly impractical, if not impossible, the offer of the Republican executive committee to make Mr. Peddy its nominee instead of Dr. Wilmot was gladly accepted.

However, when Mr. Peddy's nomination was certified to Secretary of State, that official, on the advice of the Attorney General, ruled that Mr. Peddy was not entitled to have his name on the ballot for two reasons: first, because he had voted in a Democratic primary election; and second, because he had not been nominated in a primary election as provided by the election law. With this ruling there begins the battle of injunctions.

On October 3rd Mr. C. E. King and others filed a quo warranto suit in the State District Court at Corsicana asking that the Secretary of State be enjoined from certifying Mr. Mayfield as a nominee. District Judge Scarborough issued a temporary injunction, the hearing to be held on October 16th. This bill charged that Mr. Mayfield's nomination was void because he had expended more than the $10,000 allowed under State law and that his reports in certain particulars did not comply with the terms of the law.

The second step in the battle of injunctions was the filing by Republican Chairman R. B. Creager and others, in the Federal Court at New Orleans of a suit to mandamus the Secretary of State to certify Mr. Peddy as the Republican nominee. In this bill it was charged that the requirements of the Texas election law as interpreted by the Attorney General and Secretary of State deny the people of the State the right of expressing their will and therefore violate the law of the United States.

On October 10th the Attorney General and Attorneys for Mr. Mayfield filed an appeal bond in the Court of Civil Appeals in Dallas to advance the cause and certify it to the Supreme Court of the State for decision. This the Court of Appeals at first refused to do. But it subsequently did certify to the Supreme Court certain questions concerning the case and the Court set October 25th as the day for the hearing on these questions and on the motion to suspend the Corsicana proceedings. In the meantime, the Corsicana Court heard the case and it was given to the jury on October 24th. On October 23rd the Federal Court sitting in New Orleans ruled that "this Court is without jurisdiction," leaving the case to the State Courts for decision.

On October 26th, after the jury had failed to reach a verdict after a period of over forty-eight hours, Judge Scarborough called the jurymen back into Court and instructed them to answer "no" to six questions which he had submitted to them.

The effect of this instructed verdict was to hold that Mr. Mayfield had failed to comply with the provisions of the election law regarding the amount of expenditures and the report of the same to State officials. But almost immediately after the action of Judge Scarborough in making the injunction final, the Supreme Court answered the questions of the State Court of Appeals favorably to Mr. Mayfield, overruling, of course, the action of the Corsicana Court. The outstanding point of the opinion, which was rendered by Associate Justice Pierson was that the holding of the District Court of Navarro County was not binding since the

appellees were not possessed of the legal capacity to institute and maintain such a suit, the law requiring that it must be brought by a State officer in behalf of the State. of the case were not considered by the Court.

The merits

The next day (Oct. 28th) a temporary injunction was granted by Judge A. N. Blackmon of the 77th District Court. It differed from the action of the Corsicana District Court only in that it was sued out in the name of the County Attorney of Limestone County. But before this had taken place and without waiting to hear from the Dallas Court of Civil Appeals which had not yet formally dissolved the Corsicana injunction, Secretary of State Staples certified Mr. Mayfield's name to the County clerks as being the Democratic nominee for Senator.

The Dallas Court of Civil Appeals dissolved the Corsicana injunction as a result of the opinion of the Supreme Court but, also on motion of attorneys for Mr. Peddy, issued summons to Secretary of State Staples and Attorney General Keeling requiring them to appear before it and show cause why they had not been in contempt of Court in certifying and advising upon the legality of the certification before the dissolution of the injunction.

At this time it was rumored that Attorney General Keeling was taking steps to secure a general writ of prohibition from the Supreme Court to prevent any Court or person from taking Mr. Mayfield's name off the ballot. However, he did not secure such writ if he attempted to do so and the scene of the conflict continued during the next few days to be in Dallas with occasional shifts to the town of Groesbeck, where the hearing in the temporary injunction issued by Judge Blackman took place. The Court of Civil Appeals finally set aside as invalid the Groesbeck injunction, holding that the suit was brought "too late for equity to obtain to Mr. Mayfield," and then denied the right of rehearing of counsel for the Peddy forces. It also dismissed the case involving the charge of contempt against Mr. Staples and Mr. Keeling. It so happened that the final decision of the Dallas Court was issued on Sunday, November 5th. Im