The Van Buren press., 1874-05-05
THE FACTS.
What the Supreme Court Decided in the
Quo Warranto Case.
Clayton and DOrsey's Endorsement
of the Decision.

/
| Extract from the Quo Warranto CaseD
| II the Court, on the motion OF the At
torney General, has power to declare
| Governor out Of office because he was
not properly elected or qualified, and ifit
were possible for the Attorney General
and majority OF the Court to he i'm
properly controlled. no Governor could
hold his position unless the Court ap
proved his policy. II the
Court can Judge it may misjudge' IL
seems to us one Of the elementary prin
ciples Of our government that the do
partments shall be co ordinate and CO.
equal and while the Courts OF the State
move forward in the discharge Of their
duties, free from cxccutive policy and be-
yond executive control, the Governor is
clothed with manhood that places him
above the whims, and stronger than any
prejudice that could possibly exist In
Court, and leaves his position to those
who, under the Constitution, are to de.
signate the proper incumbent, and who
are to try him for crimes or mlsdemean-
ors In office, and all the Prescriptions Of
integrity that can and shenld weigh in IA
vor of a Court, must be allowed in favor
Of the representative men Of the people.
"The returns OF every election for
Governor, Lieutenant. Governor, Secreta-
ry of State, Treasurer, Auditor, naming
other heads OF departments shall be
sealed up and transmitted to the seat OF
government by the returning officers, and
directed to the presiding officer OF the
Senate, who, during the first week OF the
session shall open and publish the same
in the presence of the members then as
sembled. The person having the highest
number Of votes shall be declared elected,
but il two or more shall have the big hest
and equal number of votes for the same
Office, one Of them shall be chosen by
joint vote Of both houses. CoStestsd
elections shall be hkewise determined by
both Houses Of The General Asssmbiy, in
such manner as is or may herscftsv be
prescribed BY taw. Con Arks., art 6,
sec. 10.
1t is declared that contested elections
shall be determined by both Houses Of
the General Assembly, and the manner
of proceeding is regulated by the acts of
the Legislature; and it may be observed
that this provision in the Constitution
does not lim!t the right OF contest; 1t is
not given exclusively to rival candidate,
nor to prescribed number Of voters,
nor to the people at large, or any par
tcular officer as the representative Of the
people, but the mode of contest and trial
Of the rights Of the claimant is to be 40
the Legislature have or may direct by
law. They are to say who may contest,
and how proceedings are to be brought
before them There is nothing declaring
that the superior Courts Of general juris-
dc;ion shall not try and determine the
rights OF one claiming to be legally
elected to either House. Nothing declar-
ing that such cases are exceptions 10 the
power of the Courts, to issue writs OF
mandamus or quo warranto, and hear aud
determine the same, or to issue other
proper process under the practice Of the
State to bring parties before the Courts
and have issues tried, rights determined,
and judgment Of custer where the par,
ty was illegally holding; yet we have
heard no one 60 SO far AZ to assume that
any judicial officer or Court has the right,
by quo warranto or otherwise, 10 decide
whether or not any one is or Is not en-.
titled to seat in either House OF the
General Assembly. . Ii Is quite
clear that the Constitution never intend
ed that the Courts should have power to
seat or unseat any member ofthc General
Assembly, and recognizes that Us n co.
ordinate and CO. equal department Of the
DRY that the members Of the Legislature
are not to be disturbed BY the Courts, are
we not forcibly brought to tue conclu.
sion that they are not TO seat or unseat
the Governor, who is the head Of another
CO. ordinate department? Had the Court
the power by quo warranto to seat or un-
seat the Governor, to scat or unseat the
members of the General Assembly, simply
BY ruling that they have not been elect, d
in strict conformity to law, does it not
destroy all equality of independence Of
power aud digni,y2 And if it is possible
for a majority OF q Court to corruptly
enter into political Intrigue, would not
the Whole government of the State be
dictated by these few--a thing not likely
to occur, but a possibility, properly
guarded
The solution of the question before Us
depends upon our own Constitution, and
upon fair construction OF that instru.
mcnt we are Of opinion that the right to
determine who is the legally elected Gov
ernor Of the State beloags to another de
partlnent, and not to the Courts
Under iha Cansiifntinn the detarmina