Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1869-03-12
Thn Conntu $40 n1antinn

1 A"N ''iWMW w NiI itflW wv ihttNh '"W
nsrcioi og yesterday, which win explain itself
puuYsurEo. o.. Msrcbs 3. 1860.
/ J. r. TyipK. Esq..-- Dcv .Sirf AZ We have
nruccd iroin dn.rrtt Siur,ns IN HE phliic
priuts rrcin time &, time, numerou- sud vary
ING statements OF lie present status otuut cnun-
tv SCAT cAses, AMI ave unable 10 gct NJ tie raal
| facts irnm thom We ash you " favur ns at au
| enly dag witha shdcmcnt w Wfiiinr n The le.
| gel measures tlot have trum 'imc t. tine, been
| takcn, with their rgsulis.
! We would alsn bc ubligcd to you for your
opinion as tn the proper cuur' NOW Ia bo tkpn
IN The PAT, NJ PyrN shurg. and u lurthcrauce
of her best interests in this mtltvr, So far as
means are concerned ~ carry on any reh snnahle
| measure for the retention Of tho county sent nt
| rerrysburg, they viii I've fotthcominp, bowling
Green to the contrary, notwithstandng.
Yours, sincerely,
Il. u. Pick, ions rOWFRs,
A. Roach, n. A. lIANttroS,
II. TuoRSroS, H. NJ lIuNr,
II. G. LANRgScE, J. q. Knoll.
To Mrssas Y. d Pgcg, A. RotCn ASH oru.
BRs e. GENrLrNEN As von are aware, the
legislature of uhin, by law pnssed March 29.
1855, authorized the removal Of the scat uf JUS
licc, of Wool County, from Pcrrvsbuig tn BIw-
ling Green, hv the first section VI that act. By
the sccoul section OF the same act, the law was
tn take vncctsand be IN .orrc Whenever the
m1iurliy " The Electors coting oi he mkt gen
ornl election, shall v)tc "S5r Removal" Tn.
der thi. law 4 vhie was tAian. nj the next plcc-
resnltrl IN favor OF rymIyt, by n small muiur-
ity. On tie return OF the poll book 20 The COun-
| ~ CLERK, he was cujtinel from counting the
votes. FIRST, buclnse Tie mti0rty claimed WIS
obtained by fraud aud secondly because the
| law was clnim,d ~ he uucun ,utulionil. THIS
case went IN the District Court AMI from there 10
| supreme Court, whore il was argued fully by
counsel on huth sides certain punt' being con-
coded as law hy all The counsel Ia the case,
Tho Suprcme Couit decided the law uucoustitn.
tnnnl not on any Of the prints claimed for 1t by
the nitnrnevS EP Bowling Gr1pn. nor ngninst the
positions ialpn by the cnunsel iur perrvsburg.
but sustained tho law wholly upon ptints ant
with rehspns not a. grd by couu.c for Bowling
Greru, aud which were in fuct conceded rs We
understood their arguments as against the val
iiity of the law, kuuw this, because IN all tn
printed arguments, hr which I prepared aud
submitted one, the rcasnns tor sustaining 1t Civ.
en- by the Supreme Court sn conceded by cluu-
scl inr Rowling Green we're not argue hy ~.
AZ The same tune proceeding had been com
mcnccd and was going I'm under the special
statute GuthnrilWE contest OF county seat clcc-
ti1ls Hon. OtaVius Waters buing the com.
missioner appointed by Tho Governor to take
and report the testimony as To The validity Of the
vote This report was taken With care, and re-
turned tn the Court ni Common plrns nf Wnpd
c0nnly aud NJ the following term, after fnl
heaiiuy aud arguhiert, tie vote was set Inside
and declared Illegal aud void. luthis case, also,
the question Al o. tic oonsllulinndlity ol The
law was raised AMI fully argued. The Court
Of Common Pleas however, made only finding
OF fact, and said nothing rs tn the validity of the
law unlcl which the yutl had been taken. The
case wunt tp the Di ttiot CpuHt, upon petition
in Grror, tn reverse this inlng, aud, strange tn
say, notwithstanding The finding OF the Court
below was purely one Of fact, yet the District
Court entertained the mntiuu, reviewed the facts
and reversed the Court of Common Pleas
The Questions OF Law were NJ every hearing
urged stronuously by counsel for Perry sburg,
bat ignored by the Court, and the cutire case
was decided merely upon the rcyicwYd of The
facts.
The legal questions, however, being present.
cd fully bl tic rooord, aud the testimony being
very vOlumiuOuS, aud snuiG uI il being Of a M.
tro that could only hn placed fully before the
Court by fac StH'irs and not 10y copies merely,
it was thought best to present petition in urrtr
tn the supreme Court. alleging only errors of
obtained, duly cprtiied, with tile bill of rxccp-
tuns, leaving out the testimony, and rely ing NJ.
un the errors Ot law assigned thereon The
petition was presented tp the full bench upnu
| mnuin iot leave IN file the samc, aud wis fully
| argued on all points, including the points aud
| rrasnnR giveuhy the supreme Court in the lurm-
| CT use, IN which they held the Law 10 be Con
slitutionll.
Tho Court took the case under adyisoment,
and after about two weeks dclihcration gave
the following decision;
"The motion in this case IL uvcrrucd on the
Transcript filed, aud leave to Withdraw papers
without prediudice to tho right to file another
notion" Now, il is plain to every lawyer that
tl,uir railing simply mcaut this that tor some
irrtgularity IN the rec,rd attached to the pcu.
ton, and not ON the ground that the reasons for
the motion thetciu specified were not woll taken,
the motion was overrulcd Or, IN other words in
stead Of taking the responsibility of deciding
the law Of tho case az p'cstntea, the Court eva-
ded that responsibility by hooking up, in the two
weeks they hAd the stm1 under ndvisement,
samo technical objection 10y which they might be
relieved from the decision of legal propositions
aud probably reversal OF their former holding.
These are the facts MS counsel for the c0ntos.
tauts understand them,
Now, yuutsk mo whNtynu shall do. NV reply
is this; The full record will be necessary.
| But firmly belcvu that un tho presentation OF
q complete record OF the case a. the supreme
Court, they will hold (as ! think they are now
pursuaded) that the law is clcarly uuconslitu-
tinual, The ease is one Nl Importance to Per-
rysburg, aud, to use hmil ar saying, a.
would" IT alono wcro to be consulted, now
that we have gone So far, +" eithpr win the horse
or loose the saddle"
have the honor TO be, gentlemen,
Your ODD, I scrv't
JAMES Il, TYLER.