The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1874-05-21
The Arkansas Contest for the
GOVernOTshp Ended----The e
President decides i'm favor
of Baxter, the present incum-
bent,


bent.
This is one of the most remarkable politi-
cal contests of the age. For the purpose of
presenting the leading facts in the case we
will briefly review the whole matter.
Elisha Baxter and Joseph Brooks were
candidates for the Office of Governor of
Arkansas at the general election held on the
5th of November, 1872. The returns of this
election were transmitted to the seat of
government by the returning officers of the
several election districts, directed to the
presiding officer of the Senate, who during
the first week of the session of the Legisla-
ture shall open and publish the same in the
presence of the mem bers there assembled.
Contested elections shall be determined by
both Houses of the General Assembly in such
manner as is or may be prescribed by law.
Such is the requirement of the State consti-
tuition Pursuant to this requirement of the
constitution the votes for Governor at said
election were counted, and Baxter was
declared to be duly elected. When the present
constitution was adopted, there was law in
the state which continues la force prescribing
the mode in which the contest should be
conducted before the general assembly, the
first section Of which is as follows: All
contested elections Of Governor shall be decid
ed by the joint vote of both Houses of the
General Assembly, and in such joint meeting
the President of the Senate shall preside. :"
4 Ii OF tha
of the election, and accordingly presented to
the lower house of said Assembly his petition
for contest, but by the decisive vote of 63
TO Q it was rejected by that body, which alone
had jurisdiction of the case. But notwith-
standing this, subsequently, the Attorney
General of that State upon the petition OF
Brooks applied to the Supreme Court of
the State for quo aCdrrGato to try the vail
dity of Baxter's title to the Office Of Cover
nor. But that Court denied the application,
upon the ground that the Courts fthe State
had no jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction in
such cases had been conferred upon the
General Assembly by both the Constitution
and Laws Of the State. But Brooks was
bound not to be settled by the highest Court
of the State if he could help it. So he
brought suit against Baxter in one of the in
ferior Courts, the Circuit Court Of Pulaski
county, alleging that Baxter was usurper,
and claiming that he, Brooks, had received
$4,000 more votes than Baxter, and grays
that the office of Governor might be given to
him, and $4,000 besides, the emoluments of
said Office accruing during the time Baxter
had held said Office under protest But here
Brooks was more fortunate. What the
Legislature had refused to do, and what the
Supreme Court Of the State declared it
had no right to do, the inferior court of
Pulaski county did, Notwithstanding Baxter 5
demurrer or plea that said Court had no
jurisdiction, and without further action, soon
after, on the 18th of April last, rendered
Judgment in favor of Brooks in accordance
with the prayer of his petition. In a few
minutes after this decision, without any pro-
cess to enforce the decision, but with body
of armed men, Brooks forcibly elected
Baxter and took possession of the Governor S
Office, before Baxter knew what Judgment
said Court had rendered. But on the next
day, Baxter counsel made motion to set
said Judgment aside on several grounds,
chief of which was that said Court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit, but the next day the motion was over
ruled by the Court. This little Court
evidently thought it had done big job,
and was fully resolved to stand by it. The
substance Of the opinion of the Supreme
Court alluded to above, is as follows. ''Such
an issue should be made before the General
Assembly; it is their duty to decide, and nc
other tribunal can determine that question.
We are of opinion that this court has nc
jurisdiction to hear and determine writ oi
quo ,odrrdnto for the purpose of rendering
a judgment of custer against the chie
executive of this state, and the right to filt
an information and issue writ for tha
purpose is denied. ="
After this decision had been rendered
political associations began to break up Man!
of the leading Baxter men became arden
supporters of Brooks, and Brook old sup
porters became warm friends of Baxter, ant
thus matters went on from bad to worse
until the recent unheard of denouement, whel
the inferior court, before alluded to, decided
against Baxter. And close on the heels O
this comes case made up of persons all OF
the Brooks side, designed to get an opinion
from the Supreme Court the reverse of tn,
one previously rendered, and herein quot
ed. To this end the State Auditor upon
requsition of Brooks, drew his warrant upo,
the State Treasurer for the sum of 81 900
payment of which was refused Brooks thel
applied to the Supreme Court for writ o
mandamus upon the Treasurer, who sat up
by way of defense, that Brooks was not Cover
nor of the State, to which Brooks demurred
and thus the case was got before the Suprem