The national Republican., 1867-05-15

his arsumsnti nrst, by referring to th. sn,r.,
hled BY respondents TO petitioners. setting fortl
that an oath had been sAministered TO answer osy
tain questions, not rs to bis eligibility as lsgs
voter, but as to the diligence he exercised in N,
premises. In Clayton and Turtons cases word
had been interpolated In the answer showing tha
thsy had an oath offered, to be administered /
them, TO answer certain questions touchipg thsi
right 10 be enrolled as citizens Of their ward,
resident according 10 the act OF Congress Tn
| return, as amended, had not been sworn TO- an,
| II was presumablo that the judges intsndsd 10 I'D
minister, not an oath as TO qualification, but sim
liar In character to the one In Lopgiey's case
After some discussion the amended returns were
Withdrawn. H
Mr. Merriek argued that, under the act Of Con.
gren by which the judges ofeections derived thelr
authority TO hold their sessions two days for cor.
roction, the writ Of manddmns could not 40
into force until after that correction had been
made, and cited the clause In the act bearing on
THIS pointi that an open session was 10 be held
for correction to amend the errors Of their judg.
mont and the exercise Of their funetions as such,
and not for Placing new names upon the regis.
try. They have the power now, to-day or any
other time. They need not wait for the two days
specihed In the bill, II thoy ind they have erred
Their duty was to have n correct list Of voters;
more In that than In the manner and mode OF
doing II. He quoted the corporation law in 70.
gard to assessing the school tar and the man.
ner Of correcting the samei that the judges Of
elections then held open session for this purpose
and cited the case Of walIach for the writ Of
ndndan1us; that as the judges had held the open
session, and bad concluded their labors, tho ma n
ddrns had to lie, from tho fact that they we're
pOv,rless to act, their labors having ceased.
He maintained that the judges Of registration
did not desire to correct the osses Of Lopgiey,
Clayton, and othersi that they threw them.
selves back upon their dignity, and that 10 per-
sons did not come when they summoned them to
appear they did not allow any TO come In edge
ways rs q voter.
Mr.. Merrick asserted that It was In the power
OF the court to act In Its discretion to grant the
| writ OF mdnaamnJ from the necessities Of the
case that II was q prerogatiye to be granted
upon justice and equity, and to protect the right
OF tho citizen by the power Of this writ; that IL
should be granted In all cases where justice re-.
quired II and the welfare of the country de-
manded IT, that 1t was n specific right vested In
the court. Objections had been interposed that
1t was beyond the Jurisdiction Of the court to
grant 1t in this case. He maintained that the
judges OF election possessed no judicial power,
nor discretionary authority either. They acted
on the presumption Of law altogether. All male
citizens were entitled 10 vote under the law
where they did not come under the exceptions OF
difqunlihcations of that law. That under the
law now in force all male citizens twenty -on,
years of age and over were entitled to vote, ant
could not be prevented from exercising that in
nlienable right when they did not come within
tho exceptions or disquali6cations. The peti
TONER set forth in his affidavit that he possesset
all the requisite qualifications of q voter, anC
had not been disputed by tho respondents; mo-
could they assign any juSt reason why he did not
Tho return. Mr.. Merrick asserted, exceeded
all legal documents he ever beheld fIod In any
court, for brllianoy(D They, he affirmed, had
not been we'll drilled or disciplined in the laws.
They, tho respondents, could not assign any rea.
son why he was not a qualified voter, or why he
was not n pauper, &c. Their ignorance was
amazing in this matter, desiguedly so. By this
evasion they admitted their knowledge Of tn,
plaintiffs right to vote, but wished to conceal II
The judges Of election could not exercise a ju
dicial power, II they did their actions were final
no writ Of error having been provided for unde
the power in which the so called judges Of regis
tration acted. Congress never intended tha
any part Of the judiciary should pass into thei
hands, or they be clothed herewith oven II II
did be, ns n citizen, under the Constitution, had
right to protect his property or franchise from
abuse, by tho power vested In the Judiciary. A
judiciary was not amenablo for any act IL might
| render against any citizen, no matter what that
act might be, whom announced from the bench,
in the whole length and breadth Of the land,
lie could not recover, by action, any damages.
For this reason alone should the writ Of pIaa.
ddmHs be granted, and he cited a similar case In
the English courts, whore a voter sued the judge
for damages for not receiving his vote at m cleo
tion for members of Parliament, and decision
rendered for damages. Also, 1t was decided Il
the House Of Lords that the judges of election
were no judges at all. But that while thay ha
the power to receive and reject voters, still thei
actions were subject to revision and criticism
It was denying man an English right to dcpriy
him Of his right to vote. Let all come up an
vote. 1t was an English inalienable right an
It was an American right, to be exercised by al
free American citizens.
Mr. Merrick in very elaborate and lucid IN an
ner illustrated discretionary power Of the sourt
in the naRddmWS case, and the plain duty Of th
Judges OF registration as set forth in the act
Congress under which they act or are to act, thi
their functions are ministerial duties and not j
!. dicial powers. II was a discretionary power
issue q manddmns, and the court should ex,
, else that power when certain ministerial hgen
9 determined to prevent free American citils
y from the right Of franchise contrary to law, j
tice, and equity. The court should exercise
L. visitorial power over these judges whose appoi
m ment had been placed in the hands Of the cou
20 It for the court to see that the right of a
IS iEen was not trampled upon with impunity by
so.caled judges.
Z Mr.. Merrick cited as a similar case to the o
rs In question at issue, whero an applicant for
re mission into the medical society Of Erie, n
York, on the ground that he had advert isSd
It one of the county journals some new theory
L tho case or treatment Of phthisies or astb pIa
known to them and therefore would not adj
him. and the court granted tho writ of mana
! mus upon the ground that rs q corporatsd boz
1 II had the power to exercise rcvisionary pow,
} over its actions.
. Mr.. Merrick argued the case nearly four hour
= embracing nearly all the writs Of BiGILaamI
pertinent to the question from the reign Of Quee
. Anne and Elizabeth embracing a period Of thr,
q hundred years, down to the courts Of New lOrl
c He was listened to with marked attention, bot
by the bench and the bar throughout its deli
+ cry.
AT tho conclusion of Mr.. Merricks argumen
d Mr. Jos. H. Bradley, sr., addressed the cour
and demonstrated to the bench that II it, In Il
o light before it, believed that ii wss the intento
y of the judges Of registration, in the revision
o the registry during the two days Of open tossiC
IS previous to the election, not to place the nan
d Of the plaintiff Langley upon the registry reco
as n legal voter Of this District, then the cou
1t should grant the mUHdamWS us prayed for.
a The court adjourned until 10 O'Clock Il
IN morning, when Messrs. W. A. Cook and A.
N Riddle will resume the argument for the I
spondents. The question Is beginning to excl
n much interest In the minds Of the legal fratern
ID ty, many of them being attentive listeners to
dne forensic effort of Mr.. Merrick upon yestc
d day. =
. REAL ESTATE SALRs.-On Monday a
" ternoon, Messrs. Cooper 4 Latimer, auotlonser
,. sold lot 6, in square $40, improved by ne
a one story frame dwelling situated on Four
street east, between Pennsylvania avenue and
"a street SOUTH to Mr.. A. L. Okert, for 81, 90