Arkansas intelligencer., 1849-08-25
From the Little Rock Democrat.
Review Of the Decisions of the Supreme Court.
No. 2.
ihe os0e' MtAs Supreme Court, July
Term, lS49.

ne o.a'e' LnMe Supreme Court, July
John Carnal,
This case rests on writ of quo warranto is
sued by the State, calling on Carnall to show by
what warrant and authority he exercised the Of
flee of sheriffof Crawford county: To the writ
he plead his election in lS4S and his commission
and qualification under it. The State replied that
he had failed TO return the assessment list of tax
able property for Crawford county, by the 25th
of March, lS49, as required by law, and had
thereby forfeited his office. That by reason Of
such failure, upon the certificate Of the } udge of
the County Court, the Governor had on the Sd
July, lS49, declared the Office vacant, and that
the office was vacant. To this replication Of tho
State, Carnall demurred : which is in law, an ad
mission on the record, that ali the facts stated
therein true, and of course an acknowledg-
ment : That sheriff of Crawford county he
had failed to return his assessment list of taxable
property, required by law, and consequently
was liable TO all The penalties imposed, for such
an offence.
AS thus presented, two acts were involved
by the case. lst. The act of the 18th of De-
cembor, 1888 which provides that If the sheriff
shall fail to return his assessment list, rs required
he shall forfeit his office, and such failure shall
be certified to the Governor by the Jugde Of the
County Court, three Justices of the Peace, six
credilabIe house-hoders, who shall within ten
days thereafter declare the office vacant. I'd.
The act of the 9th of March, 1888, which the
court with an Inaccuracy not much 10 be
mended, particularly in the discussion and deci-
sion of constitutional questions, says is part Of
The same act. The Both section Of this ac! de.
claies that if the sheriff shall fail to file his ''as-
sessment list, required he shall be deemed gull.
ty of msdemeanor in office, and conviction
shall be fined in any sum not less than five hum
dred dollars, and shall be removed from office"
The act of the l7th of December, 1885, the
Court says mus, yield 10 the constitutional rights
of the citizen and officer. 1t the exercise of
high prerogative on the part of even Supreme
Court 10 declare an act of The Legislature viola
ton Of the constitution. Circumstances some
times, however, impose this duty upon the court,
and present it, in shape, in which it cannot con-
scentiously be avoided but even in this extremi-
ty most courts reluctantly undertake the task and
yield onl to the absolute necessity of the case,
after every means of reconciling the act with the
constitution has been exhausted and then distinct
ly point out the clauses of the constitution with
which it is in conflict and dcmonst rate the correct
ness of their conclusions, by a train of clear and
convincing argument. Our court, in this case, do
not seem to have felt this sentiment or entertain
ed very deep sense of the high example, uni.
formy set them by all other courts.
Not the slightest effort made to reconcile
this act with the Constitution; is any clause
pointed out, with which it is alleged 10 be in con-
u
the State United States, which is the cause of
lis condemnation, but, if an ill-advsed and hasi-
ly drawn opinion, they have in the most summa-
ry manner pronunced null and void an act unhap-
PLY called for by the existing state of things, and
rendered necessary by the almost uniform neg.
fect of the revenue agents.
But, admitting this act TO be unconstitutional
and therefore null and void, the only effect of
this was 10 render the certificate of the County
Judge and the declaration of forfeiture by The
Governor, null and void ulso and so much of the
replication of the State, set forth these facts
surpusage, and therefore 10 be disregarded by the
court. Tho case then rested upon the act of the
9th of March 1888; and, the breach and vola-
lion thereof by l.le sheriff, as admitted by the dc.
murrer.
The act Of the l7lh of December 1887, is dc.
cared void, and the declaration Of forfeiture by
the Governor also, because the sheriff had no op-
Portuniy of bong heard in his defence, before u
competent tribunal.
Now was the supreme Court a competent tri-
bunal TO hear and determine this case, and de- |
clare the forfeiture Of the Office and is it not ex.
preSsly made so, by the constitution And is not
the writ of quo warranto, specially provided By
our Constitution and laws, for case like this al
And does not the sheriff admit on the record, as
was clear in the of HUI ads the Stale, 2,
Arks. 2S2, all the facts, that by law forfeit the
office, and authorize the court TO render judp.
Ient Oi IOrIelure
Then why in the name OF common sense and
public justice, and all that laws and courts were
made for, was he not convicted and deprived of
his office ....
And what renders this judgment the more in.
comprehensive, is that the court, in their opinion,
cite The very act which governs the case, which
they say furnishes full complete, and adequate
redress in such cases: and say further "tlat the
sheriff has right to retain the office for momen,
after he has violated the law, but before he sha n
be deprived of il he shall be heard in defence. be.
fore competent tribunal Yet the sole object
OF this proceeding TO enquire into and deter
mine whether the sheriff had by violation of law
forfeited the office. He appears, and sis heard
in his defence' and admits on the record, that he
is guilty Of the charge made against him and so
far from being convicted and deprived of his Of !
flee, he is permitted to walk out of court in tri-
umph, with all the honors of war, with a iudg-
ment of the Supreme Court Of tho State, vouch.
ing, in the most solemn form, that he has mol for.
feed, but has full warrant and authority to exer.
else the Office of sheriff of Crawford county.
What bitter mockery of justicc--what a pre.
cedont to hold up in a country where the public
agents are in the habit of setting the laws a, dc.
lance, and almost always, with impunity.