New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1872-12-17
TIE InrLSLANl CASE.

There has been no decision III the United
! States Supreme Court on the abstract menls
| OF the case of Warmoth against Kellogg. As
/ the points involved in the cause have been
! somewhat confused, IL is necessary that thls
| at leayt, should be clearly understood. Let us
! reState the case briefly: question having
arisen as to the legality of certain election
proceedings i'll Louisiana, recourse was had TO
the Il. :. Circuit Cont, Judge Durell presld-
ing. The Court, considering the case, which
took the title of Kellogg against Warmoth,
decided that all proceedings under what
is Known rs tho Warmoth Returning
BOARD were null and void. The Court
then cnioined WarmOth against canyaSsins or
considering any of the votes cast at the late
election, or any returns thereof, except IN the
presence Of certain persons specified; these
persons were known as the Kellogg Returning
Board, who were thus recognized by the Court
rs the only true and legitimate authority IN
the premises The Circuit Court also prolilp-
tied Gov. Warmoth from interfering In any
way with the Kellogg Board, and ordered him
10 deposit all election returns and all d0cu-
ments Herewith connected with the Clerk OF
the Circuit Count OF the United States. so
far. the action of Judge Durell and OF the
Court over which he presides was conclusive
IN the matter of recognizing one of the par
ties in the contest; it recognized WIN. L. hei-
logg as the legally elected Governor OF the
State, because it recognized the so-calicd
Kellogg Returning Board rs the only source
from which authentic and valid election re-
turns could issue and those returns were
known to declare Kellogg TO be elected Gov
ernOT.
The issue then presented TO The United
States Supreme Court was involved in an
application made by the Attorney-General of
the State of Louisiana TO procure prohibition,
or restraining order, against Judge Durell
from proceeding further in the case of Kel-
logg against Wamotb, on tho ground that
Durell had already usurped functions not
given to % Circuit Court by law Observe the
merits of the controversy as between Kellogg
and Warmoth could not come before the Su-
preme Court; the legality of Warmoth's pro-
ceedngs, the constitutionality Of Kelogg's
candidacy, and all similar questions lay out
side the case. The Court had to decide,
Q) whether it had jurisdiction IN the case,
and (2) if the decisions of Judge Durell were
legal. If the first question were decided in
the negative, the second could not, of course
be considered. The arguments were all upon
the first question, and the decision affects that
alone The Court, as we understand its de-
cision. comes to the conclusion that it has 10
right to Interfere that the Supreme Court
has no jurisdiction to issue TO a Circuit or
District Court writ of prohibition, except in
certain cases, of which that pending is not
one; therefore the writ Of prohibition is de-
in
which DuTells proceedings can be reviewed
in the Supreme Court is on an appeal from
the Circuit Court; that appeal cannot be
taken until the Circuit Court makes q final
decision in the case. 1t has not done so be-
fore it does, the State Government will have
been bound, hand and foot, in Kellogg's pos
session. The laws delay will do the rest
and for all practical purposes Kellogg's term
as Governor will be secure from this time.
1t is too late to express any regret at such
a lameDtable conclusion of long and feverish
struggle. WarmOth is fertile in resource and
invention, and be may develop some new
element which will prolong the contest; but
the decision of the United States Circnit
Court seems practically to conclude the whole
matter. A single section in an act Of Congress,
of doubtful constitutioDality-t Enforcement
Law-has awaited to sweep aside all proceed
ings under State law and paralyze the State
Courts. Without reference TO the question Of
abstract right as between Wsrmoth and
Kellogg, it may be truly said that an inferior |
court OF the United States through Judge of |
worse than questionable character, has inter
yened in local dispute, and has assumed TO |
decide between contestants TO State Offices;
and this has been done ifTegularly. arbitrarily, |
and without any of those forms Of delberatiOn |
which clothe the Law with its majesty and
respect The decision of the
Supreme Court is not unexpected it will not
be even criticised But tho antecedent proceed
lgs arc alarming; they are sublersiye OF the