The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1874-05-16
w ASHINCTON.
WASHINGTON, May ID.
Opinion I'm the
Arkankas Case.

Arkansas case wherein Elisha Baxter
and Joseph Brooks each claim to be
the Governor of the State, and had
made application to the President for
aid to suppress the insurrection. After
quoting from the Constitution OF Ar
kansas a section providing for the
opening and publishing the returns OF
elections for State officer, under which
Baxter was declared Governor, and q
clause providing for contested election
cases, under which the lower House OF
assembly rejected Brooks petition ior
the contest by a decisive vote of 80 to
9, the Attorney-General passes to the
proceedings OF Brooks in the courts,
He says: Subsequent to the vote
in the lower House, the Attorney.Gen ,
eral Of Arkansas, upon a petition OF
Brooks, applied to the Surpeme Court
OF the State for writ o: Quo aoarTanto
to try the validity of Baxter TO
the office OF governor, i'll which it was
alleged that Baxter was upsuer, &c,
and that the court denied the &pplica-
ton on the ground that the courts OF the
State had no right to hear and deter
mine the question presented, because
exclusive jurisdiction in such cases had
been conferred upon the General As
sembly by the Constitution and laws
o. the State. Brooks then brought suit
against Baxter in the Pulaski Circuit
Court under the civil code OF Arkansas.
Brooks states in his petition that he
received more than ninety-hve thou5-
AID votes, and that Baxter received
less than thirty thousand votes for gov.
ernor, and after declaring that Baxter
had usurped the Office, prays that it
may be given to him by judgment OF
the court and that be may recover
$1,000, the emolumeuts OF the office.
This presented to the courts simple
question OF contest for the office OF
Governor. Baxter demurred to the
petition en- the ground that the court
had no jurisdiction in the case, and
afterwards, on the 18th OF April, the
court, in the absence OF the defendant's g
counsel, overruled the demurrer and
without further pleadings or any evr.
dence in the case rendered judgment
for Brooks. in accordance with the
PRAYER of his petition. Brooks, within
a few minutes thereafter, without pro-
cess to enforce the execution OF the
said Judgment aud with the aid Of
armed men forcibly elected Baxter and
took possession OF the Governor office
GA tue uext day after the judgment
was rendered Bsxter's counsel made a
IN o,ion to set it aside, alleging, among
other things as the grounds therefore,
that they were absent when the demurrer
WAS submitted and final judgment
rendered, and that the iudgmcnto o the
court UPON overruilng the demurrer
should have been that the defendant
answer over, instead OF which
final Judgment was rendered without
giving any time or opportunity to an
swer the complaint upon lis merits
that the court assessed damages with
out any jury or evidence; and finally
that the court had no jurisdiction over
the subject matter of the suit. Bu
the next day this motion was overruleo
by the court. When the President, IN
pursuance OF provision OF the Cou.
eti,ution OF the United States, is callec
upon by the executive OF State tc
rrotect it against domestic violence, |,
appears to be his duty 10 give the re-
quired aid, especially when there is nc
doubt about the existence OF violence
but when two persons claim 10 be Gov
ernor and make calls upon the Presi'
dent under the constitution, 1t becomes
necessary for him to determine which
of the persons is consttutionaIly Gov
ernor. The constitution OF Arkansa'
is decisive on this question as between
Baxter and Brooks. According to tb'
constitution and laws OF the State th'
votes for Governor were counted anC
Baxter declared elected, and at once
duly inaugurated. Assuming that M
greater effect is TO be glver
to the counting OF the vote
in the presence Of the General Assem-
bly, than might be given 10 the regular
action of any board OF canvassers, ye
when il comes to decide the question o
contest the General Assembly is con
verted, by the constitution, into judi
cisl body, and its judgment ls a
conclusive and final as is the judgmen
, OF the Supreme Court OF the State or
suy matter within its jurisdiction. Tht
parties to such contest plead and pro
duce evidence according to practlc
provided in such cases, and the con
, troversy is invested with the forms an
, effects OF a judicial procedure. Brook
appears to claim that when the contes
for Governor is decided by the Genera
Assembly, the defeated party may trea
the decision as a nullity and procee,
, dsnoro in the courts. This makes tn
r constitutional provision as 10 the con
test OF no effect, and the proceeding
under it an empty form. Looking a
the constitution alone it appears per
p lectly clear the courts OF the State hav'
1 no right to try a contest about the ottic
? OF Governor, bat that exclusive Jur'sdlc
diction over that question
!. vested in the General Assembly
n There is no decision made by tn
d Supreme Court on the precise questio
e presented in the case OF Brooks VI
Baxter. Berry was a candidate TO
t State Auditor on the same ticket wit
r Brooks. Wheeler his competitor wa
declared elected by the General Assem-
= bly,. Berry then brought suit unde
.. section 325 OF the code in the Pulasb
: Circuit Court to recover the Office
o Wheeler applied to the Supreme Coul
e for an order to restrain the proceeding
and tn at court issued writ OF prohi