The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-03-28

to your Honor that it~Would be laudable to
invent some ground for taking jurisdiction,
l think they are presuming on your Honors
amlability and patience. It shows the ex-
tremity of their cause; and their, despera-
tion when they appeal to- passion and in
yoke the PREJUDICE Or sympathy Of the
Court to inventra ground for jurisdiction.
We contend that, in any event your
Honor can have no -iurisdiction in equity.
Chahoon's only rival is Ellyson. No man
but him pretends te-oceupy and enjoy the
office; in the Possession of. which he says
he is molested and disturbed. Now, the
mode of trying title to Office is- as we'll
known as any known to the law. 1t is pro-
vlded that no equity euit shall be enter
tanned IN Federal court where the remedy
at common : law is complete. The remedy
in this matter is complete at common
law: quo aoarrd,ato is the mode for
trying it. This is shown in Angel and Ames
on Corporations, section-I24 and Hilliard
on lnjunctions, p. 444, and 81 Wallace, p.
23G. = .a-...,.''',,. 7a,,. = -. -, '.F
The writ of qup, ,0arranto, it had been
stated, could only be used by Government.
This ls; s;anerrr. tmay be nsed by citi-
zen in the name of the Government and is
granted toue complainant on a light
claim of right to an ofice.H He read
Angel and Ames on Corporations, -739--
40 Hilliard on Injunctions, p. ,444; and
22l Howard, p. TIA, to show TINT quo aoar-
runto is the only mode Of proceeding. 1t
doesn't matter whether the party taking
the writ out is in Office or not. 1t isn't
whether "in"1 or "out," but the title of
he office that is tried. In 22d Howard, p.
III, in the mayoralty Of Georgetown, the
old officer took out writ against the new
claimant. The case was taken up to the
United States Supreme Court.
Here an interruption occurred to SEN
tence o prisoner.l ..-.s.: ........ .-.'
Mr.. NELSON: / am not discussing now
who is in or out of Office. / am only dis
cussing what is the law by which the title
to office may be tested. / have shown that
quo ,rarranto is one methcd. There is an
other-mundn1nais. Angel and Ames on
Corporations, 1916; Sd Henning and Mum
ford Virginia Decisions, Minors edition,
D. SGT 9Th Bacon's Abridgment, c, p. 42l.
In case between two contesting clerks 1t
was decided mdndamas was the remedy to
restore clerk to his Office occupied by one
illegally appointed, and this is the peculiar
remedy for the restitution of an Office which
has been wrestled from any one. We main
tain on these authorities that either quo
arnrTanto or mnndamuS are the peculiar,
appropriate, and specific, remedies at law
for restoring to office. .'... .a~'.
Jurisdiction in court Of equity in case
of this kind is .unwarranted by principle,
practice, or precedent, and We demand a
case to be produced where it has been ex-
ereiseta ---s--
Mr.. WISE referred to authorities to show
that in English law right to Office was
tried in equity. :, L..-'F - :. - r."~
Mr.. NELSON said Mr.. Wise failed to make
the distinction between private office and
public office. ''-
Mr.. WISE Any Office is public property.
MIR. NEEsoN: There is distinction be-
tween public and private, and the gentle
man has mode an error in fundamental
condition OF this case. challenge the
gentleman to produce any precedent in Eng
fish or American jurisprudence in which
the title to public Office was contested in
u court of equity. Courts of equity, as has
been argued here, never take cognizance in
criminal cases. The other side contends
that Ellyson is great criminal, and those
acting with him great criminals. If this ena
bling act is constitutional and valid, Ely
son is undoubtedly the Mayor of the city, and
it is Il simple, pure question, of the title to
the office that is being tried here, and O
court of equity will not try legal title to
office. In 10Th Howard, page 27l, it was
decided that court of equity will not en-
tertain bill where the complainants seek
to enforce merely legal title. In 4th
Howard, page 29s, the same doctrine is IL
Illustrated in very peculiar case. The
/ United States marshal had levied on some
tproperty-by the way, they were slaves.
The United States in those days took slaves
rs we'll Us anything else. The State She
riff afterwards lev led on the same pro-
;; pcrty, and the case went up to the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court decided
that it was n mere question of legal
title, and must be tried at law, and
refused to try it in equity. In 9th Wal
lace, page 4sl, where the remedy was
by mnndumus, the Supreme Court re-
fused to try;the case in equity. 1t said it
was furnished with no authority to allow
suit in equity and injunction to be substi-
tuted for writ of mandamuS. 1t is pre-
cisely because the case we are now arguing
is not strengthened by precedent or autho-
rity that they ask your Honor to invent
ground for jurisdiction and become a
usuper to aid them. claim that there are
precedents for not doing So.
Angel and Ames on corporations, Z, 734
and Hilliard on Injunctions, 443 to 448;
Abbott on Corporations, page 547, sections
q, 90, and %, were read to show that the
action of corporators or borough officers,
illegally appointed, cannot be tried by in.
junction, the proper remedy being writ OF
quo lrarrantO, to be obtained after the exer-
else or usurpation of power after his ap-
pointment. Now, these cases ore specifically
and directly to the point, and cannot, as we
affirm, be invalidsted by any authority
from the other side. Then, sir, we stand
here in court of equity denying that there
is any authority or precedent for this court
of equity taking Jurisdiction of this case.
Now, let us examine the claims Of the
complainant. Sometimes they maintain
that he is United States officer Though they
are little cloudy in the claims they set
up), in the hope that that may induce this
court to take jurisdiction. Now, l have
shown that if he is he cannot claim pro-
lection unless in case of suit for acts
done during the war, or under the revenue
laws. If he claims that he is obstructed
from his duties as an officer of the United
States there must be a criminal process.
The mere fact that he is a United States
officer does not give this court Jurisdiction.
But is he on officer Of the United States :
I don't propose to 90 into this illimitable
field of the reconstruction acts-thls bound
less territory. I only propose to state prac--
tically the facts Congress has declared and
I hope that your Honor will remember the
fact, that the laws passed for the States
lately in rebellion were empbatically con-