Daily national Democrat., 1858-12-16
COMMUNICATED.
District .Intircshln.

EDITOR DEMocRAT: My attention has been
particularly directed to the question of the
disputed judgeship, in this District, and l can
not, for several reasons agree with the arti-
Gle published in the Express, of the 18th inst,
signed conservative !" and taking him upon
his own ground, he, in my opinion, is wrong
in his conclusions that "there has been a va
cancy in the office of judge, of this District,
since the month of October, 1851" His fist
proposition is, that Judge Barbour has been
the Judge, dc tacto of TIE District and hav-
ing acted under color of right, his acts thus
far are equally valid, as though he had also
been Judge de jure." 1t is upon the above
admission, that | shall attempt to show, that
no vacancy as yet has occurred, and that
Judge Bliss is still the Judge elect of this
District For, if Judge Barbour has been
Judge de .facto, and acting under color of
right, aud his acts thus far hare been equally
ualtd, as though he had acted de jure, there
has been and is no vacuncy, and the term of
office of Judge Bliss cannot commence until a
vacancy does in fact occur, which would be
on the lst of January, 1859 For again, if
Judge Barbour did not act as Judge de j,re,
his acts can in no case be valid, and if his
acts, acting as Judge de .facto are ralid, then
there has been no vacaicy; for the ideas as
expressed in that article, that Judge Barbour
has been acting as Judge de fdcto and as
such his acts are galid, and that at the same
time, he was not acting as Judge "de jure, are
inconsistent; for it is saying that in the for
mer case his acts are valid, while at the same
time, in the latter, his acts could in no case be
of any binding effect, from the fact that there
was vacancy from October 1857, and Judge
Barbour since was neither Judge de fdcto nor
de jure. But in any case Judge Bliss is enti-
tied to the office of District Judge, for the
fact did not become apparent till the decision
in the case of "Brodie VS.. Weller" that there
was a vacancy nor was Judge Bliss advised
of the same, any more than Judge Barbour
and Judge Barbour holding over "under color
of right" and his acts being valid, &C., Judge
Bliss upon being advised" that there was
could still claim, qualify and hold the
'ffice in dispute-nor was Judge Bliss bound |
o know, or to anticipate until it was legally |
made apparent, that there was vacancy, in !
hat office; and therefore "ignorantia Eeqis
ION ercusat" does not and cannot apply-and
udge Bliss when legally advised, that there
vacancy, can and ought to enter upon
he duties as such Judge, when Judge Bar.
our declines any further exercise of judi
ial powers" or when it becomes apparent
sgally that Judge Barbour cannot act, either
S Judge dc jure or "under color of right"
And again, Judge Bliss and Judge Barbour
Ould not both hold, at the same time, the
lme Office, and Judge Bliss could not hold
nat office while Judge Barbour was de tacto
nd "under color of right" holding the same
flee, and doing acts that scere va,id Judge
Hiss then, under those circumstances, did not
abandon" the Office of District Judge, by ae-
ng as County Judge, for it is admitted that
e did qualify within ten days, &c, as by
Nv required, and has therefore done all that
e could do to qualify himself for the office
District Judge and he was not bound to
esign the County Judgeship, to make his
tile any more secure, when his commission
does not authorize him to enter upon the
uties of the office of District Judge, until the
st of January, 1852" and when, as l have
boye shown, there was no vacancy.
"NERITAs."