The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-03-26
THE MUNICIPAL WAR.

| Ellyson and others was taken up.
| MIR. CHANDLER continued his address,
| which was cut off Thursday by indisposi-
ton. he said that Mt the close of the court
Yesterday he was discussing the PROPOSE
| ton whether Chahoon was an officer of the
United States by virtue of his appointment
by General Schotield to the Office Of Mayor,
and that question arose in the question of
| jurisdiction. The question whether the
State of Virginia was in or out Of the
| Union was Of no importance. What we
wish to arrive at is what power she had as
| IL State. In the reconstruction act passed
lIarch Cd, 1867. sections and 4, it is shown
that the property, liberty-nay, the very life
! itscll--ot a citizen of Virginia were put
under the power Of the military commander
of the State. Nowhere did single civil au-
/ thority Of the State have the power to con-
/ trol the military commander. But thcn-the
question arose as to how far the power OF
the commander went. and then, to make
assurance doubly sure and take a bond of
fatc,n Congress passed the act of July l9,
1851, defining the meaning of the former
act, and taking the power away from Andy
johnson and giving it to {. S. Grant, now,
bv the votes Of the people and the grace Of
: God. President Of the United States. The
power was given to the General command
| ing to appoint officers Of the army to fill
Offices. Did that appointment make this
officer less an officer OF the United States I!
| No. And so every person appointed by this
imilitarv commander is an officer Of the
4 United States. And now, being m Off
Ger of the United States, the case
from 81 Wallace is applied. It shows,
as decided by Chief Justice Chase in this
court, that jurisdiction may he taken by
simplication. There arc certain inherent
rights in q Government to protect it5cll.
and it cannot 10 that unless it protects its
officers. !; must protect them, or the Go
vccnncut is mere sham. contend that
Chahoon is an officer Of the United States.
and that in that case th!a court has Julls-
diction Of thiss matter. But Mr.. Ellyson's
counsel contend that Chahoon is not n
United States officer, and that even if he
| was the Mayor, We had admitted in our bill
that Ellvson was the de Tncto Mayor, ani
] that Governor Wells had cited authority
from Blackstone to show that Ellvson WAS
] the DE- furio Mayor. Why, how could they
put such proposition as that The whole
argument Of Mr.. Wells was to show that Cha
hoon was Mayor de jurc as well as de ylocto,
and he contended that if Ellyson was to con-
tinuc his present acts for thousand years
il wouldn't make him Mayer. Suppose the
acte Of Mayor don't mean the bludgeon
| acts or the acts consigning men to graves.
or the acts done by virtue of q great body
Of men, bnt the acts of peaceful Mayor
Ind been done quietly at desk next to Mr..
| Chahoon's desk Would that have made
the actor Mayor? conceive not. Any
lawyer or any man in Richmond might do
that. As to their claiming that onr bill
admits that Ellyson is Mayor de ,tudiO, why
no bill can be drawn up in which some as
iutc man might not tni an opening by
| taking detached portions OF ii to pervert its
mcanng-iust rs we might take q verse
| from the Bible and say that Book says
I" there is no Cod" while the verse read
entire says ''The fool saith in his heart
there is no God" 1t is Just in this way
that the opposing counsel pervert the mean
| ing OF this bill. Mr.. Chandler read the
| bill of Chahoon to show that he nowhere
| admits that Ellyson is the de .fdct0 Mayor,
| but. on the contrary, asserts that he is the
Mayor de tdcto and dej'trc, and that Ely
son has only assumed the Office.
The CorRT: The usual language to cha
| racterize prctcnce to Office is not ''as-
sumed." but - falsely pretending" How
ever, | understand that the bill uses the
| word assume" in the sense of falsely
pretending"
MIR. CHANDLER: Does the gentleman on
the other side remember that on yesterday
| he contended that this case was merely u
contested title, just as where contest TOR
the possession of a horse or picture Is.
Well, sir, suppose favorite horse Of the
gentleman had been stolen and sold, and
! the owner asked to enjoin the party buying
! from riding that horse out of the State,
wouldn't the court have the power to enjoin
| in that case? The counsel asks if the
Court will grant oil injunction forever !,
| Why. how unreasonable that question IS .
The injunction is granted only until the ques-
ton of the right to the Office is settled and ii
that is never settled. why, then it could
| he granted forever. We ask here that the
parties be enioned against proceeding by
| force. And does your Honor say that we
havn't the right to ask that they he stopped
| from proceeding in that way Doesn t
the gentleman know that all in functions
ale temporary in their nature until the mat
ter upon which they are issued settled; that
this injunction would last until next term
unless a motion was made to dissolve 7
Doesn't he know that if the injunction was
issued ard Chahoon made no effort to test
his right that it would end The gentle
| man asks why Chahoon does not arrest FL
tyson, and try him. Why don't Ellyson
arrest Cahoon. and try him! Isn't that
answer fair? Isn't what is sauce for the
goosee sauce for the gander -
They accuse us Of blowing hot and cold
in saying that part of the enabling act
may be constitutional and another part un-
constitutional. Well, is there any thing
unreasonable in that? May not part OF
an act he constitutional and the remainder
not so ! The Constitution overrides all law
ofthe State rcpugnant to it, and We hold that
80 far as the removal of these officers is con-
cerncd this enabling act it unconstitutional {.
And just here / would pay my respects to
a proposition earnestly urged by the coun-
sci on the other side. They quote the Code
of Virginia to show United States officer
cannot hold civil Office under the State Of
Virginia. Do these gentlemen contend that
| is the law now? The Code of Virginia,
page 100, prescribes that no United States
| officer shall hold such an Office. But the new
Constitution of Virginia, article 3, pre-
scribes that all persons who may vote can
hold Office, and the only persons who can't
vote are idiots, felons, duellists, and Of
ficers, marines, and soldiers, of the United
States, who are not allowed to acquire
| residence in the State. The volume
of Leigh produced by the gentleman.
was remarkably good before the new
Constitution was adopted, but is just about
as good now on this subject as the articles
on slavery would be. The new Constitu-