Sunflower Justice: A New History of the Kansas Supreme Court

Conclusion

Conclusion The Wyandotte Constitution, with Article iii establishing the judicial branch of government and the supreme court, was typical of its time and place in borrowing heavily from earlier state constitutions, especially that of Ohio, where many of the framers originated. These people wrought well, and little of their work needed change over the next dozen decades. Although the early justices had little formal legal training , this, too, was typical of the era. Luckily, most were self-trained in the fundamentals and were dedicated to the law as a profession and to applying it to Kansas circumstances. In the early decades the justices dealt with issues typical of an emerging frontier state that was flooded with litigation over removal of Indian tribes and quieting their land “titles,” dealing with white land titles, settling county seat wars, and building railroads. The early court followed the national pattern of reliance on common law, the jury system, stare decisis, or precedents until new societal differences arose. The court significantly modified tort defenses to allow plaintiffs more leeway to collect damages in the post– Civil War era. The emerging Industrial Revolution before, during, and after the Civil War produced sea changes in Kansas society. It reinvigorated and revolutionized the capitalist system and took it in new directions, produced the “labor problem,” and exploited the laboring classes, both agrarian and industrial. Both groups rose in protest over their reduced status in society, laborers by organizing unions and farmers by attempting to improve their lot in life through political action. Either group, if politically cohesive, could control the state’s political life, but certainly 332 Conclusion if they united, they could subdue the economic royalists and demand their rightful heritage of a part of the American Dream. Alas, they continued to reject cooperation and, through division, were defeated. The farm organization and Populist Party came close to achieving power but, in the end, also succumbed to the “divide and conquer” approach . The capitalists continued to succeed in convincing agrarians that laborers were the enemy. Those in power cannot abide challenges to their authority or the inevitability of their achievements. The Populists disputed this but lost without other support groups. In the long term, however, the Populists succeeded when the Progressives accepted their program and carried it out until World War I interrupted their success. War was followed by reaction, which was supplanted by the world’s worst depression and even more devastating World War ii, all in two decades. The Great Depression caused liberals to revive the reform movement with a new relationship between government and individuals and carry to fruition the earlier Populist and Progressive reforms. In recent history the emphasis has been more on personal rights of women, children, and minorities in contrast to the previous emphasis on property rights. During these epochs, the law metamorphosed in tandem with the alterations in society. Law in Kansas formed its society, and Kansas society, in turn, molded the law. When the Populists dominated the supreme court, the ruling class anticipated dire consequences to its world. But lawyers are universally conservative politically and are especially dedicated to precedent. This becomes even more pervasive when they become judges, as they are governed by the constraints of law. The Populist majority on the court disappointed their supporters and shocked their opponents by handing down decisions similar in effect to those of Democrats or Republicans. Politics seemed to play no dominating role in interpreting and applying the law.¹ In its early history the justices began modifying the common law to give greater protection to women. This was later extended to protecting children in custody and in legal adoption. The issue of prohibition plagued law enforcement officials and courts until this sumptuary legislation was abandoned in 1948, when “the bootleggers and the prohi- Conclusion 333 bitionists” ceased marching to the polls together. During prohibition’s nine-decade history the working man was convinced he had a Godgiven right to his liquor after a hard day’s work, and clever suppliers experimented with a host of legalities to test the law, the enforcement officers, and the judges and to evade the ban. Most important in the long run, the experiment resulted in abolishing the terrible nineteenthcentury open saloon. The federal courts follow a firm rule against hearing “friendly” cases . Litigants must have “standing” to bring their case; in other words, one side or the other must have been “hurt” and...