Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1840-12-08

construction and legal meaning OF EdiiOiS ~
certain acts passed BY the Legislature, II is needless L
state that except to Legislators and lawyers, a report
would be any thing but interesting. We Will, how
ever, MS briefly rs possible, give our readers as clear III
idea of the subject as we possibly can.
The Report having been read,
Mr.. BYRD Ohe gentleman against the validity o
whose return the Select Committee had decidedly pro-
cecded at great length TO argue the question, with The
view of showing that the Select Committee had come
10 n wrong conclusion, and that he was entitled TO take
his seat as member for the county OF Frederick. Aitei
several preliminary remarks, he proceeded 10 snow lt'
difference existing between the Frederick and airiaS
eases. In the former case, the High Sheriff, as ~
.bould contend. IN the exercise Of his undoubicd right
and in discharge of the high functions WIN when NJ
was invested, took possession of the foil LOOKS oil ms
county, and on the day and time appointed by IL" pro
ceeded 10 compare those Poll Books, 10 sum up the vote:
and ultimately made a return IN favor Of h'n,Sea ahs
another gentleman subsequently the Deputy Sberif
assumed 10 perform again those acts already coInpietee
BY his superior officer, and gave 4 return IN FAVOR o.
his opponent: but IL the Falrfnx case, as inc rePor
she wed, the Deputy Sheriff without any interference
or aifempt nj control, or assertion Of right on Inc par
of hs nrincipal. had gone on 10 cunsuInnlate the
whole duties of the shcriffalty, aud had made the re
turn before his principal attempted 10 act. nus 'lfn
The two cases exhibited 4 most important difference
He should not assume, that n Deputy sief!ii con'o
not make n legal return, ana chula not "ectue ~ -
case of an equality Of votes BY giving the casting vote
bul he should assume, that the High Sheriff might, I
he ,hounht proper, before his Deputy had acted Il
the mater, and c~onsunimatcd Tie dul'es oi ~ s"T
%riffalty. superccde his servant pro fanto, and aiscnar:I'
himself those duties imposed upon HIM by The law ; NJ
should contend, that the High Sheriff OF a county, whe
Their he conducts the election OF his county IN person
or by deputy, might, within the time prescribed 10y law
and in the mode prescribed BY law, give a certificate L
a party having the greatest number Of votes, or IN case
Of an equality, give the casting vote, provided that hr
Deputy had not previously acted in the matter, and con
suInmatcd the duties Of the sherfalty. The High She
riff Of Frederick had completed all the duties required
of him, and had gwen the return IN his favor, wren TN
Deputy Sheriff, with a full knowledge of the frev'ou:
action of the High Sheriff, determined 10 supercede In
superior pro tanto, and give a return in favor of his op
ponent.
MIR. BYRD proceeded to argue and to quote cases il
support of his argument, that the High Sheriff might
at any moment, supcrcede his Deputy in the discharge
of his duties, even although a regularly written contrac
had been entered into BY the parties, and a pecnniarll
consideration paid by the Deputy to the High Sherif
for The appointment. If, therefore, the High Sher'i
could snpercede his Deputy at any moment pro toto' III
thought he must have the power SO 10 act pro tdn:o. !
was a proposition as good in logic as in law, that the ma
Ior must necessarily embrace the minor. The gentle
man sat down after citing various acts and cases IN sup
port of his position, and moving to amend the resolution
Of the Committee, b. reversing it.
Mr.. MAY said, that his situation in connexlon wit