Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-05-16
MEMPHIS. TENrE SATURDAY., MAY 1e, is


and the conclusion irresistably follows
that said judgment of the circuit court
is void. A void judgez-snt binds no
body. Section five hundred and twenty
five Of the code, under which this judg-
ment was rendered, is no doubt intend
ed TO apply to county an6 other inferior
officers, for which no provision
is elsewhere made. Respecting
the claim that Brooks received major
ity of the votes at the election
it must be said that the President has
no way to verify that claim. If he had,
1t would not, in my opinion, under the
circumstances in this case, be q proper
subject for his consideration. Perhaps
il everything about the election was in
confusion, and there had been no legal
count Of votes, the question Of MAORI
ties might form an element OF discus
sion. But, whereas, in this case
there has been a legal count of votes,
and tribunal organized by the consti-
ton of the State for that purpose has
declared the election the President
ought not to go behind that action to look
into the State'svote. Frauds may have
been committed to prejudice, but un-
happily there are few elections where
partisan zeal runs high, In which the
victorious party, with more or less Of
truth, is not charged with acts of fraud.
There must be an end to this controversy
upon the subject. It would be disas-
trous to allow the proceedings by which
Brooks obtained possession of the Office
to be drawn into precedent. There is
not State in the Union in which they
would not produce conflict and, proba-
bly,, bloodshed. They cannot be upheld
Eo1 nd in
opinion, Baxter should be regarded as
the lawful executive of the State of Ar
kansas.
Since the foregoing was written the
Encouragement says: "I have received
a telegraphic copy of what purports to
be the decision of the supreme court Of
Arkansas, delivered on the seventh in
slant, from which It appears that the
auditor of the State, upon the requisitiOn
of Brooks, drew his warrant on the
treasurer for the sum of enc thousand
dollars, the payment Of which was re-
fused. Brooks then applied to the su-
preme court for a writ of rldTlddTlIIs up
on the treasurer, who set up by way of
defense that Brooks was not governor
of the State-to which Brooks demurred;
and thereupOn the court says: The only
question that we deem it necessary to
notice, is, did the circuit court have the
Jurisdiction to render Judgment in the
case of Brooks Uers1s Baxter? He feels
some delicacy about expressing an opin-
ion upon the question propOunded, but
under the pleading it las 20 be passed
upon, incidentally, if not absolutely, de-
termining whether the relator is enti-
tied to the relief asked for. His right to
the office, if established at all, is estab-
lished by the judgment Of the circuit
court of Pulaski county. We are of the
opinion that the circuit court had juris-
diction of the subject matter, and its
Jurisdiction appears to be regular and
valid. Having arrived at these con-
clusions, the demurrer is Overruled, and
the writ of nldnddn1tEs will be awarded
as prayed for. To show the decision, it
is proper that / should make the follow
ing statement: On the twentieth of
April Brooks made formal application
to the President foT aid to sup
press the domestic violence, which was
accompanied by paper signed by Chief
Justice Mcclure and Justices Searle and
Stephenson, in which they stated that
they recognized Brooks as governor;
and to this paper, also, IS appended the
name of Page, the respondent in the
above-named prOcs eding for nldnddDgtIs.
Page, therefore, did not refuse to pay
the warrant of the auditor because he
did not recognize Brooks as governor,
but the object of his refusal evidently
was to create such facts as were neces-
sary to. make a case for the supreme
court. Accordingly pleaGings were made
up by parties, both of whom were on the
same side in the controversy, and the
issue so made was submitted to the
judges, who were virtually pledged to
give the decision wanted, and there,
within the military ercampment of
Brooks, they hurriedly but with delicacy,
as they say, decided him governors
decision in plain cCntTovention of the
constitution and laws Of the State and
in direct conflict with two other de-
cisiOns Of the same court deliberately
made. l refrain from comment. More
than once the supreme court of the
United States has decided that it would
not hear an argument in G case made up
in this way, and q decision OBJ
tanned under such circumstances is
not recognized as authority by
any respectable tribunal. No doubt this
decision will add to the complications
and difficulties of the situation, but 1t
does not affect my judgment as to the
right of Baxter to the Office of governor
until it is otherwise decided upon. A
contest made by the legislature of the
State on the eleventh instant, the gen.
eral assembly was convened in extra
session upon the call Of Baxter, and
both houses passed a joint resolution,
pursuant to section (, article 4, of the
constitution of the United States, call
ing upon the President to protect the
State against domestic Violence. This
call exhausts all means by which the
people of the State have under the con-
stitution to invoke the aid Of the execu-
tive of the United States for their pro-
lection, and there seems to be, under the
circumstances of the case, an impera-
tive necessity for immediate action.