The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-04-07
If Mr. Dnniel's Argument TN
C.so Of Chahoon W.. ElIyson anu
Others.

Others.
ss~ Daniel said. In continuing the argu-
want he should put behind him much tna'
nas extrancous. introduced on the opposi'e
aide. Were he making stump speech 10
s'ron,;scuous crowd on the husflnTs or III
H. strecf he would have something 10 81!
an those matters, and pretty PLAN TAX II
,ra,,ld hc. He might show who was at
tonnt;nc TO introduce here that 'rr'hclpc
If Personal government which was now
at;nc France to its centre: he VINO was
o,eyinc and carrying out law OIL the etate'
ar he who undertook torcihiy 10 resist IL.
Nor was there much chance that men OF
all classes would shortly stand shoulder ~
shoulder" in support OF that resistance
I'm ibis subject. hcthought, while the cotin-
sci exhibited the fury of prophecy, thc!
conIa Law claim to none of its lnsplratloil'
Nor, should the tenants OF those pioouS
Graves referred to rise up "anu snake tneii
,,nry locks" need his side trcmhlc NJ thclr
rhos;lv Salutations. 1t may he well IL othcrs
engaged in these transactions 40 MOI, AT
some time or ether, repeat anoliisf scene cl
the great dramatist, where lhc SuiiI
monarch, amid the faise show OF mlrth and
fnst;vity. cries out TO the murderer of
Ranouo. There's blood upon thy face
This scnsitiveness, this eagcrncSs to rush
into defence and accusation. was 10 he eN-
pcrtcd from that side: it was natural IL
their situation. Hc should endcaror to GlS-
cuss the law and facts Of the case III man
ner due to the dignity of the forum IN which
he appeared. .,. o.so
shows: First, that lie claims to be no" an
officer Of the United states under All 9iiS'-
nal anpointment by the military as Mayor
of the city, which appointment has been;
since the State was turned over 10y GtheTal
CANDY to the State authorities, continued
by order of that officer. Second. that TINS
anpointment will not expire until Mayor
of the city is appointed under the ConS,itu-
ton, which is stated to he 4 tnteq STATES
law. Third, that the Legislature. had no
right to pass the "enabling act" under
which the Governor appointed inc
Council which appointed EllySon-that
net being inconsistent with the Constitu-
tion. Fourth, that he is still in the
office performing its functions. but that
the Observation-Disclosures EllySon ana
Poe. his Chief of Police-di>turb him IN
the endowment of the office and the discharge
of its duties. BY attempting forclbly 10 e)ecl
him from the Mayor office building by
barricading him therein. cutting on al ac-
cess to him-by attempting to possess them-
selves of the public property under ms care,
and by interfering with his police. Not one
of these propositions is true in point OF law
or fact. Particularly is it untrue that the
complainant is now in the Office. There is
no evidence to sustain it : but the answer
of the -Ellyson-and the proof
filed. fatty refute it. Elvson is in. exercising
the office by the will of men who control
the city fisc, which pays and supports the
office. That is the true test OF possession.
BESIDES, if the Legislature had power to pass
the law under which he claims the office,
and the Council. under the law. could ap-
point him to it, il is Il solecism to say there
can be any possession of it adverse to him.
The State is sovereign, and has ultimate do
main of her lands and offices. Her grantee
or appointee is in by the mere act OF inc
State there can be no adverse possession
to hers. He should maintain the following
propositions:
First. If the complainant is in oihcc-as he
rretends-as an officer of the United states
Nv military appointment. and continued
in il since the State was turned over To the
State authorities by military order, ana TINS
is authorized by the reconstruction acts, ne
has no standing in n civil court, state or
Federal. The creature OF military power,
living, moving, and having his being by it,
breath, the civil government has nothing I"
do with him: he is in no way responsible TO
it. Let him 90 to General Candy for redress.
Let him appeal to Cesar. The Federal
courts do not undertake to enforce the re-
construction acts, nor to deal with any right
arising under them.
Second. If there he any civil right invol-
we'd in the compliments claim which Il clvl
court NAV entertain, thtS court OF the Uni
ted States has no jurisdiction over it, First,
because both parties being citizens resident
of the same State, no suit for any mere civil
demand Nv the one or the other can lc Ell
tertaincd here. Judicial power i'll the Fed
eral system depends for its existence upon
the Federal Constitution; but upon
the legislation of Congress for It's en-
'erciSe so much power as the acts OF
Congress vest in the Courts they may
eXcrcise-no more. This is Il postulatc not
to he denied. The judiciary act of l,S?,
creating the circuit courts and defining Their
jurisdiction, provides that 1.-THE circuit
courts of the several States shall have oriSl-
nal concurrent jurisdiction with the courts
of the several States of ali suits OF a civil ma
ture, in law or in equity, where the matter
in dispute exceeds, exclusive OF costs.
five hundred dollars, and the United states
are plaintiffs or petitioners: or III alien Is Il
party or the suit is between Il citizen Of
State where the suit is brought and Il citizen
of another State" Had the complainant.
h treating the Office IL Il ciCil appointment
b under the United States, sought TO Try the
title to it by quo arayTdnto i'll the name OF
the Government (the only lawful modc), then
the United States, being plaintiffs al his re-
lation, the case would have fallen within the
terms of the act. But he does not ask the
title to be tried. He says the office Is his,
and that he is in possession and he asks L
civil Injunction to the unlawful acts OF those
who annoy and disturb his enjoyment Of
it-as if miller in possession OF his mil
should ask you to enjoin wrong-doers from
intercepting his grist, rattemptllg to break
his wheel or dam. He claims relief for i'll
iurv TO private right. In such case the
limited jurisdiction of the court depends on
the residence of the parties. They must be
citizens of different States and this indiS-
nensable ground of jurisdiction must appear
on the face of the bill. Here any statement
OF citizenship was wisely omitted. 1t would
have shown that both parties live in this
CITY. This defect of power Is inherent Ill
the constitution of the court, and cannot
be waived or supplied by consent. The Oh
lection, whenever it appears, paralyZcs the
arm of the court, even after Il verdict, or
while q trial is proceeding before jury
Conkling, 344-5, 1854. and cases cited. The
court can make no order on this bill. Third,
because this is court Of equity which cam
not try title to office, nor interfere Ill mat
ters of criminal sort, nor any matters not
pureiysafa civil nature, nor take Jurisdle-
ton by mdntiaznaS or quo pdrTdnt0; winch
must be in the name OF the sovereign. This
is to be found in the Ilorn-books of the law.
All the acts complained OF here are tres
passes, for which an indictment or an action
at law will lie. Story says (section S93)
"There are, however, cases in which courts
of equity will not exercise jurisdiction by
way of injunction to stay proceedings at
law. In the first place, they will not grant |
an Injunction in any criminal matter, or in |
any case not strictly Of civil nature !; |
az. for instance, they will not grant i'll
functions to stay proceedings on manda-
mus, or an Indictment, or il writ of