The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-08

With Srs, = ana r \. who @:y
sss pss: s n: ! s s :s
!. ?: : .:s y s:
2 as opposite pc Of the s and place q ssn n 81
and certifying the tasimony . is directed in the proceed
part. :.s ,:s = sowsS ssssnS s
them tsstimopy shall Be taken
sni s. r s e the
wo hCusss and DAY sns 3: siS ey Joint sss On:
i: sSssh sss:isa sss y. sad sSsi b
digest Of 1874, referred to BY Mr. Rose in his bref
for Mr.: Baxter; No provision Y made for the
vesrigate case, and In such an event the pet-
TONER is LETT 70 mis- common law remedy.
ACTION OF THE LE0IsLATURA
On the 10th April, 1878, Mr.. Brooks petition was
presented In the House OF Representatives. OF the
" e e 70 i contest s s,. s
His petition was rejected without being read
i was duly sworn TO BY petitioner. setting forth
fully and clearly q statement OF facts which, II
thas the petitioner had been elected Gov.
the RI0sRs re sa o the
cordance with the law quoted above, section o..
4 viii be observed. that the section provides that
vote .ss e ne q !"
sovsa is to nc H. pr1 5sS1rf e the e
only legal motion that could DO made, but snO-
which was carried. It does not appear 70 have
been acted ON in the senate ct ALL lSee the duly
and the action H of the House thereon. which Is
hereunt0 annexed for reference and marked ex-
\ coHvrNrrcr rxouNYcArrv
a single glance sufnces to demonstrate how
utterly unconsututional was this action OF the
Of the rights Of Mr. Brooks Is citizen, Inc Leg.
stitution and the laws 1t adopts TO hear
and case q the highest i'm
On on contestant 70 ME his petition NJ vS when
fled each branch OF the Legislature shan say
%wnsshsr the prayer shall BE- granted" Neither
they may take what action they please; they may
be granted. but they cannot reject. they have no
more right to 40 so than they have to order the
tion OF the House refusing to comply with consti-
tutional and legal obligation evtnced design to
| deny justice to the petitioner.
THE QUESTION or JURISDICTION
Did this illegal conduct OF the House of Repre-.
sentatives leave Mr., Brooks and the majority Of
the legal voters Of Arkansas who, he asserts had
elected MIN, witnoas remedy, By 40 means
|
| Arkansas against Baxter for q usurpation OF che
ONCE Of Governor: The nling Of the application
no on the 20
| examine and determine the question presented
s oOp; a hearing @
nle the Information, on the ground that there was
no jurisdiction in the Supreme Court Of the State
the supreme Court Of Arkansas Was delivered In In
On the 18TH OF June. 1s1s Mr.. Brooks had inst,
tuted suit In the state Circuit Court OF Pulaski
MY Mt his election
Baxter was not entitled TO Il; that he Brooks)
was entitled 70 the salary. fees and emoluments;
him In ONCE, and for the emoluments Mr.. BAXTER
dem9rred for want q urisdcsiOn in the
gave jndgment overrultng. the demurrer,
ordering ord dns.rI Mr. R Baxser be ousssa
@ % az syD e
the record Of the cause nled herewith and marked
EXHIBITS J: B., No. p This Judgment is conclusive
United states as It Is upon the judiciary. The
Circuit Court Of Pulaski. county Is Superior
The State, Eleventh Arkansas Reports. PIP. $50 to
b52-) And being Superior Court It decides upon
Its own Jurisdiction. Same, p. 643.) =
% 81 e AZ S oI
| ter II, section 49, page al -
The Code was adopted July q 1863 see page
The section SIS chapter II, page lea declares
that whenever person usurps an once or fran
him either Dy the state Or the party entlted to
the once or franchise to prevent the usurper from
exercising the once or franchise"
Ine matter here becomes too plain for contro-
al except ~nsrs
dicion y given TO other courts It u not only not
], sas the acOns owsd y article
broadly BY Nj. Baxter that no court has it. But
to maintain that no court mas jurisdiction is to y
@ s' 81 q a. ~ s
Tn e. e fe Of
Sss TOR What T. the sc o. the
State" loonst 2. g. article : section II
United States" sec. ]. Statutes at Large. p Ia
TIN SUPREME COURT NOT SUPREME.
It has been averred that the Circuit Court OF
Pulaski county was without jurisdiction IN the
ana ss IL a s nun
jurisdiction has been decided by the supreme
Court q Arkansas in the case above quoted.
General in the name Of the State s TO de an an
information in the nature OF quo toa,rdnto
legally be gwen 70 the cecision 'S Tns o SaS
question then raised was whether the Supreme
Mr. ,Se once 81 the
the Court decided 1t mad no jurisdiction to issue the
writ. That was all. Whatsoever It said as TO the
right OF another Court to issue such q writ was
mere 00tssr dictssNn and OF no binding force as
no such question was presented BY the record.
cult Court possessed Jurisdiction to issue such
o writ, that dactun would not have been binding
on Mr.. Baxter or on the Supreme Court, and would
coming up for review rom the decision OF q CIR
cult Court. Ootter dfcsd are OF no authority. 1t
Frantz Va. Brown, II Sergeant and Rawle, page
202:- ....-.. e Esg
"1f general dtco In turning special circum-
stances are TO 90 considered establishing the law
nothing yet settled or ever can be long settled An
Yors cs AZ Snmsad annes AZ ~ Hae 81 n Kim me
liable for the correctness OF dtcsa on points trying,
said OF written out Of the case trying sh all
ION Il the rirne without argument Or full considaraon
but WIN never consider myself bound by Il when the
And profess against any person considering such obr
dict0 - my deliberate opinion.