Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1869-01-12
peals had so decided, il had not that man

by any process supervise and control their
proceedings?
He referred to the language ofsHe eeOnstitu,
ton "The Board of Bupervisors shall be THE
judges of the election, qualifications and re-
turns of their own members, and Of all county
and township oficersg
This language was both definite and i'm.
perative-"Shall be itEe judges, &c. !"
That being the power conferred upon them
BY the supreme law, no court, or power on
earth. save the people who we're above the
Constitution, could Iightfuily take it away
from them and invest L n any other tribunal.
- Fhe word sstte" before the word 9njudges"
defined with exact gertrude who were em-
powered by the constitution with the control
of all county elections.
He contended that the Supervisors were
the Legislature of the county, having, by the
constitution and laws, the superin tendence
and control of all the internal affairs and fs>
cal concerns in their respective Counties
And, being such, were intended by the con-
stitution within the sphere of their prescribed
duties and powers, to be the highest tribunal
subject to no other.
He instanced the exact similarity of the
language used ir the Constitution of the Uni
ted States in conferring tnese identical pow
ers upon each House of Congress; that of our,
own constitution in giving to the Senate and
House of Delegates the right to be the judges
of the election, qualifications and returns of
their bers, and said that the Supreme
Court might as we'll attempt by mandamus to
supervise and control the Congress, or the
Court of Appeals either House Of the Legis>
lature.
He elaborated these views at length, and
in winding up this branch of the argument,
alluded to that part OF Mr.. Faulkner's argu-
ment in which he said that if this court could
not supervise and control the proceedings of
the Supervisors, it would be to invest them
with the entire elective franchise in the
county.
Mr. KS reply was that the elective franchise
of this entire county was by the decision OF
this Court in Kennedy vs. the Registrars, vest
ed in an irresponsible Board of Registration.
A body of men, three in number, appointed
by the Governor, and unknown to the Con-
s;itution of the State, it was not disposing
of the elective franchise, but the right of
citizen duly elected to hold Office. And, if
that right was conferred upon the Circuit
Judge, it would indeed enable him to exercise
Kings pre,ogative.
Mr. K. then passed to the other branches
of the case.
He said that if he was wrong in holding
that the Board of Supervisors was not such
nte,ior tribunal, he should contend that man
aa"as 't was not the proper remedy' for three
1st. Because no demand had been made by
the relator upon the Board to do the thing
demanded in this petition. Moses on Man
damus 204.
End Because thers was another legal
remedy.
Upon this point he cited the constitution
to show. if the Board could be controlled at
all, certi"rdrt would lie, and if this did not
a afford adequate relief, Supersedeas or Writ of
Error would correct their proceedings. Not,
only were these legal remedies supplied, but
the Legislature had given another-the right
to contest the election before the Board.
Cases cited in support cf2nd point: King
William Justices VS.. Munday, 2 Leigh 165.
Archbishop of Canterberry East 213. The
State vs. Holiday Hoist 205. The People
vs. Trustees of Brooklyn 1 Wen 318. Mar
bury VS.. Madison Cranch 137.
Sd. Because the Board, in the case at Bar,
had acted upon their discretion; in their ju-
dicial capacity and had rendered judgment;
and that no case could be found where man.
damus would lie to correct the errors of infe-
rior tribunals, or to compel them to render
any other jud gment hut their own, or to set
aside decision already made.
The argument upon these points covered
much ground and the cases cited many and
to the point Moses on Mandamus, 26 to los.
Ex parte Hoyt, 13 Peters 279. Arbury vs..
Beavers, 6 Texas 457. I'd Bibb, 573.
Cowan, 363 Stephens Nisi Prias, 2294 to
2305. New York Reports, 490 to 494.-
United States VS.. Lawrence, Dallas a.
Ex parte Crane 5 Peters.
Mr.. K. closed his argument upon this point
by reciting the language of Justice Baldwin,
in his opinion delivered in the last case, In
1881: 81 have thus searched among the
fountains, and consulted the written oracles
of the common law. The streams of justice
which have flowed from the one have run in
one unbroken current for 546 years, without
such nlanddntus as this seen floating even
on the surface. The responses from the other
are the voice of law, speaking through alt
ages, in one unvarying tonej delivering the
results Of wisdom, developed in principles,
matured, digested, explained, enforced, and
supported during five centuries, amidst all
the conflicts of party vengeance, civil war,
and regal oppression"
JOHN C.. BREcKINRIDGE.-John C. Brck-
inridge is not rich. He il poor; but he is not
IL seeker for Office. 1t is quite possible that
he might have retu ned home any time du-
ring the last eighteen months without much
risk. He was urged to do so by many; and
on one occasion. at Paris, in the autumn OF 1900,
the Governorship of Kentucky happened to
be suggested, when when he said; Il would
not accept any office within the gift of the
people, if could get one outside of Kentucky;
but if 1 could be returned tony old place in
the Senate. and should be permitted by Con-
gress to take my.seat, would not consent to
20 back to Washington. l am growing in
gears, and have been losing in fortune. My
family is increasing-I need money, and look
to my profession, not only as the surest, but
as the most suitable and available and agreea-
- L. L. 4k..-