Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-04-29

ANOTHER VIEW oF TIE CASE.

ANOTHER VIEW OF THE CASE.
EDITORS APPEAL-In accordance
with my promise, l hasten to give
you fair, plain statement of the con-
dition of political affairs at our capital
city. The country has been greatly ex-
cited, and there have been earnest and
persistent efforts put forth to excite the
people, and also to mislead them IS to
the real facts of the case. l am fully
aware of the great influence your excel
lent paper exerts in this State, and if
write aGght that is OF value you are at
liberty to use it as you think best.
Joseph Brooks was Bakers opponent i'll
1872, and, as universally admitted, was
elected over Baxterby fully ten thousand
majority, but owing TO The peculiar ma
chinery of our election laws, Baxter
was returned as elected. This would
have been the case if Brooks had re-
ceived fifty Thousand majority instead
of ten thousand. The election law was
not made to protect the rights OF citi-
zens.. but sOGS made for the purpose of
carrying elections. Brooks claimed the
right to the seat, and presented his petit
=tiOn to the Legislature. Under
the influence of Baxter's official
patronage he was enabled to bribe the
offices, to refuse Brooks a hearing. Near
Iy every legislator who voted against
Brooks received an office for that vote.
A more bold, barefaced piece of bribery
was never perpetrated. Brooks then
appealed to the courts, and brought his
action under the provisions of the code
for the office. He visited in person all
tie localities where frauds were most
notorious, and, after due notice to Bax-
ter, took depositions, proving conclu-
sively his right 70 the Office. Baxter
affected To treat ali these stops OF Brooks
with contempt, never appearing in per-
son or by counsel to contest Brooksis
claim. Brooks accumulated mountains
of proof, and after nearly eighteen
months of arduous work he obtained
Judgment of custer against Baxter. The
presumption is always in favor Of
court, when it assumes jurisdiction, that
it has jurisdiction; and Judge Whytock,
who rendered judgment in this case, is
q lawyer of no mean ability. He read
law in the office of EX-President MillaTd
Fillmore, and has been held in high
esteem by the whole bar of the State
who have been brought in contact
with him. The case was submitted to
him months ago, upon all the facts on
one side, and BaXter's demurrer on the
other. And on the day set for its call 1t
was decided In favor of Mr.. Brooks, who
Immediately took possession of iheOthcs-
This he had right to do and would have
been a craven, and unworthy representa-
tive of the fifty Thousand citizens who
voted for him, if he had not done so.
Baxter showed himselfan arrsnt coward,
for he made no resistance to Brooks, and
hastily fled TO st. Johns college and hid
for two days.
Many have been led to think that
Brooks's action was revolutionary and
without authority of law. II such be the
case be should be suppressed at whatever
cost. In the quo sCdTTd1ltO case Of State
Us. Baxter-Mr. Brooks was not party
and could not be bound by any dictG Of
the court in that case. Again, the
statute under which Brooks brought his
action, has never been passed upon by
the supreme court, and until the decision
rendered by Judge Whytoek shall
be set aside by the appellate
court, it must stand and Be respect
ed even by Baxter; and every
act in opposition to this judgment rem
deFs him liable TO q sojourn in the
penitentiary. The impression has also
been made that Brooks took possession
without any writ. Permit me to give
the law governing this case. In the
case of People as COnnOver, six Abbott,
New York reports, the court say: "NO
writ was required to execute the judg-
ment in the case. the judgment in
such cases executes itself The effect
is to destroy all color of title in the de-
feated incumbent and to oust him at
once, and to place the successful claim
ant in effice co iIlstGRteT." See Fulgham