Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-06-16
THE MANDAMUs.
CLOSE OF THE CASE or WALLACE VS..
WILLIAMS.
The Decision g. Judge Reeves Reserved.

Court mel yesterday morning n the
usual hour.
L. T.. ViRceHt Sir011i.I was ~presentHat
the Ninth ward, eoloredy on-the day of
| election; there we're two boxes there for
the reception of votes; a number of col
ored people came there TO vote; some
ballots were put in one box and some in
the other; some were asked where they
lived, some not; thOsewhO were not asked
put their ballots inthe country box, while
I was present; / recognized some as being
citizens of Chelsea; don't know the num-
Der; would be very difficult to form an
idea of what proportions thus voted;
through the middle Of the day there
might have been a third, possibly more,
but | don't know for certain.
C-rOsS-erdMined By ProseeHtiOR.-Per-
haps a third were from Chelsea; 1 do not
know exactly the total vote; think
275 on 80; was present all day, but
kept nc account Of the voters who
voted thus; noticed particularly dur
Ing. middle of day; a large crowd came
up during the middle of the day; saw no
person in charge of them; am pretty well
acquainted in Chelsea; 1 would not be
certain as to my estimate Of " one-third,D
but / think that that was the proportion
was not an officer of the election: ! might
have been absent from the polls q half
hour during the entire day.
Redirect reside in MIL street i'm
Chelsea; am an Alderman, and represent
| the Ninth Ward in the Mty Council.
CrOss-eTa1RiRed.-I did know what the
voting population of Chelsea is, but have
forgotten; my opiniOnis that nearly allof
the colOred voters of Chelsea voted as |
have described.
L. c. Wright, Esq, then opened the
argument in behalfOf the defendants and
confined to pursue the various points in
the case for an hOur and 2 half.
He took the ground that the
judges Of election are ministerial
officers, and their action IS not subject to
revision. Their decisions are final there
fore, and the Commissioner of RegiStra-
ton lwhO by law stands in the place of
the Sheriff in all election matters, and Is
simply an executive officer, having no ju-
| diciaI authority except in the issuing of
| certificates of registration has no right
to question them, to 90 behind their ac-
/ tions, or to revise, alter, correct, change,
or interfere with their retnrnS IN any way
or manner. The Judges of election are the
only Ones who have any right or authority
to open the poll boxes, and to count the
ballots and make returns For the cor
rectness OF their action they alone are re-
sponsibie, and in the event of ile-
gality or fraud they are answerable.
The Commissioner of Registration
IS in no wise held by their action. His
sole duty is to examine and compare their
returns, and to give the certificate Of cleo
| ton to whOmsoeverN finds to have the
majority of the votes east. As to the sin
structiOns given by Williams TO the
judges of election, shOwnin CouEt, he adj
mitted that they were simply a nullity
| and an ~usurpatiOu. q The judges were III
no respect bound by them, and did not
obey them.
Mr.. Kortrecht followed in the closing
speech for the defendants, occupying the
remainder of the morning and nearly the
whole of the evening.
The positions assumed by him in the
| course of his arguments are briefly rs fol-
Ows
Under the system Of the Code for hold
ing of elections the Sheriff Is the officer to
hold the same; that his acts are purely
ministerial-the acts of IsG6-7-S place
the Registrar in the position of
that officer; that [ Judges OF the
| election though appointed by tho
Sheriff or Registrar perform judicial
functions separate and distinct from that
| officer, over which he has no supervisory
| power; that they constitute the only |
proper tribunal, and their decisions are
tiual as TO the qualifications Of all persons
voting. thew are required BY law to return
the results of the election so held by them
to the Sheriff or Commissioner, or return
ing officer as the case may be, and from
the return so made 70 him that officer
must issue the certificate to the cdndi-
dates who appear to AVE received the |
majority Of votes; that the Registrar can
not 90 behind the returns, nor can he OBJ
tain information frOul any other source.
The Code, in saying tina the officer shall
compare the polls on the Monday after
the electisn, and give the certificate to the |
candidate receiving the largest number of
votes, means that he shall COM
pare the result of the polls, and not
that he must compare the books, ballots |
ayI hn11,f-lta yag i'm order IN aGenrFnfn the /
candidates elected. Such a requirement, |
besides the inUtility hat it bears upon its
face, would be q plain violation of the let |
ter and the spirit of the code which makes
the ballot-bOX sacred, lie, that the box
itself shall be locked, and the tickets east
unfolded, so that the position c0ntended
for by PLAINTIFFS counsel Involves not
only an absuriity, but makes the Regis
trar guilty Of q palpablc violation of the
law; that If the positions are cor
rect, and if Williams can only look to the
returns of the Judges of the elections, /
and those returns only show the number
Of votes pOlled for each candidate, then
he is bound to issue the certificate Of cleo
ton to the candidate who appears from
returns to have received the greatest 1
Number of votes; that il was true that |
the returns Of the Judges only furnish
prima facia evidence that the number OF
votes certified by them to have been east !
WIZ 0'-tAAiN IDAAN'tf hHA I'M ANNNAH Gil ]
only he proved to be false, and can only
be corrected in 4 ease of contested cleo
tiOn as provided in the code; that the |
returns did not show that any votes /
were east by other han qualified voters
residing within the district; that the du-
ties of the Commissioned as prescribed by |
the Legislature, are entirely ministerial; |
but tina If he looks behind the returns
and supervise the acts of the judges in
admitting illegal voters, the character OF
his office would be then changed from a
ministerial officer TO that Of a Judicial Off
Ger. 3 Kings digest, 10th Missouri p and
26 Main, s Humphreys code, see. $50, and
a great many other authorities were cited
10 sustain the positions assumed.
Judge Pierce followed with the closing /
argument for the plaintiff. He argued
upon the same principal as laid down by /
his colleague, Mr.. Randolph, on yester-
day, holding that there was no legal GER
tifcate issued, and if issued beforethe first
Monday after the election, when the Reg
istrar is required to compare the polls, as
shown by sec. S64 of the code, it was is
sued p~remature1y and is void; that if
issued at all, the proof is that it was issued
on Saturday after the election; that If
issued after the proceedings for mandd-
mus had been commenced and the tat OF
the Judge had been made for the Sltefua-
tive writ of mandamus and prohibition it
is void because it WIS done in violation of
the order of Court. It was sufficient that
the Registrar knew that the fiat of the
Judge had gone forth ordering the manda-
mus to issue. Judge Pierre here went
into an explanation Of the facts Of the
case, and argued strongly that it was
within the power of the Registrar
to show the number of persons
who voted from the city and county, and
to be able to designate them one from the
other; that the Commissioner was alone
responsible for the events of the election
held; that though he might seek to
avoid the responsibility by pleading the
acts of his deputies, yet they acted for
him as his agents, and he was alone re
sponsible; that what he did by his agent
he did himself. Judge Pierce con
tinued for nearly two hours to
discourse upon the various turns
and postures that the case had taken. He
made a clear and fOrcible statement as to
the manner and mode of arriving at the
number of legal votes east for the Oppos-
ing candidates, the following authorities
were produced in the eourse~Of his aTgu-
ment: I'd Swan; 3D. and 5th Caldwell; !
Mores on Mandamus, and others. Upon J
the close of his argument the Court took