The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1871-05-09
The Petersburg Index on the Decision
of Judge Mann ana the journal.

instant, takes US to task for, and attempts
to refute, our article in relation to the re-
markable decision of Judge Mann of that
city, 10 the contested election case Of
Armistesd vs. Davis. 1t gives an account
of the case, and justifes fully the decision
of the Judge. by which Mr. Armistead
was awarded an office for six years, which
Judge Mann, Mr.. Armistead and the Lnder
knew the people did not desire him to fill,
which they knew would not be given him
if the case was remanded to the people
a decision by which Judge Mann seized the
power which the constitution aud laws of
the State place in the hands of the people,
and virtually appointed man to an office
which, by our constitution and laws, is
made elective. The argument of the In
dsr, in support of this decision, is based
upon two propositions: First, that by the
election law of the State the decision Of
Judge Mann is binding and fual in his
power of deciding between two contestants !:
and, secondly, that, to quote its own Ian
guage, "the votes cast for Davis were votes
as for dead man, an idiot, woman,
minor-in the eye of the law they were
no votes"-and that, consequently, Armis-
tead received the greatest number of votes
cast, and was duly elected.
The first proposition is untenable, for it
would in effect give the Judge the APP
pointing power, and be in direct conflict
with the constitution which declares the
Office elective. If the Judge has the power
of giving the certificate to which of the
contestants he chooses, and in every in
stance the giving of such certificate shall
decide the contest, who is safe ? With a
partisan Judge any man he desires to hold
any office, has but to enter contest with
the legally elected officer, when the Judge
can finally and irrevocaby decide the
contest in favor Of the contestant, even if
he did not receive a single vote, and 1t
would totally destroy the effect of any
election for the beaten candidate would
only have to enter contest and be award
ed the position to which the people had
elected another person. The decision of
the Judge being final the party wronged
would have no redress. Great and I'M
usual as are the powers granted to our
Judges by the Legislature, there is nosuch
power as this vested in them, and the
selling and exercise of such power is
usurpation and tyranny.
The second proposition would perhaps
be true if it were in evidence that the peo-
pie who voted for Davis did SO knowing
him to be ineligible but we understand
the contrary to be true, and it is not de-
MED that the people who voted for him,
did so believing him to be eligible. We
have been told that Mr.. Armistead pos
sessed this information, but carefully con-
cealed it in order to obtain by trick and
subterfuge, that which he could not obtain
openly and honestly by the votes of the
people. But SO far as we have been in
formed, it has never been charged that the
Republicans of Petersburg had any suspi-
cion that Mr.. Davis was ineligible, until
the appearance of his remarkable confess
sion.
The Iader does not and cannot deny
that Judge Manns decision rests entirely
upon the principle that one candidate be-
ing ineligible, the position shall be given
to the eligible candidate having the next
highest number Of votes, and we reiterate
our statement that it is the first and only
decision to that effect made in this ccun-
try, and that no American precedent can
be found for it. We even go further, and
say no English precedent can be found for
it. For every case we remember where
contest has been decided in favor of the
eligible candidate, on the ground Of the
ineligibility of the party receiving the
highest plumber of votes, it has been
clearly shown that the votes were cast for
the ineligible candidate with full knowl-
edge on the part of the voters of such in
eligibility, and we cannot call to mind
single case where this has not been shown.
The Index says:
A decision of Congress, right or wrong, as
to qualification of its members, can furnish no
precedent to State court, as it depends on
no presidents established by State courts.
In this opinion it disagrees with Judge
Mann who expressly cites the case of
Simpson VS.. Wallace, in the United States
Congress as precedent for his decision in
the case of Armstead VS.. Mann. Now
we propose to meet the issue raised by the
Lder in charging us with recklessness in
our assertions and making false state
ment. We quote it again
1t is hardly necessary therefore to notice the
labored wit with which the JOURNAL advises
Congress to follow this case as precedent nor
the false statement that that body has never
rejected a contestant for ineligibility and
awarded the certificate of the seat to the
minority candidate many instances of the
kind might doubtless be found, we will be con-
tented with one extracted from our telegraphic
columns of May 2Stb, 1870:
"W ARLINGTON, May 27.-- House-W alace,
from the Fourth South Carolina District was