The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1874-05-19
ARKANSAS PAGTPIBD,
ALL UP WITH BROOKS.
wILLIAMs's OPINION.

"
WILLIAMS,S OPINION
a IfroarA prvrnrruv r, %
THE IIwruI ~pxccr,r,,-a n'.a nAAnh
FOR BRooKsss cr'A1x ~ ''AH ohooND
x,y ''-N0N''A oiAiA.
"AsHiSeroN, May lo.-The attorney
general has submitted to the president his
opinion in the Arkansas ca.evharain
EIishs psx,.. "a I..-,., n--',.-~
snu 'o"oph Drooks, eacn
Claiming TO be governor of the state, had
made application to the president for Aid tn
suppress insurrection. After ouotina from
the co constitution of Arkansas the sec, ION nro-
viding for the opening and publisbinq
of returns of elections Tor state officers. nm
der which Baxter was declared oovernor
and the clause providing for contested cleo
tion cases, under which the lower house of
the assembly rejected Brooks petition for a
contest by the decisive votes OF 80 to 0. the
attorney Passes to the proceedings of Brooks
IN the courts. He says: "Subsequently To
the vote in the lower house, the attorney
general Of Arkansas upon, petition of Brooks
applied to the Supreme Court of the state
for quo wsrranto to try the validity of
Baxter's title to the Office Of governor. in
which 1t was alleged that Baxter was an
usurper, etc. That court denied the appli-
cation, upon the ground that the courts of
the state had no right to hear and determine
the question presented because the ex clusiye
upon the general assembly by the constitu-
ton and laws of the stale. Brooks then
brought suit against Baxter in the Pulaski
Circuit Court, under the civil code of Ar
t Sansss; Brooks states In bis petition that
Baxter received lass Than an ooo ,otss ' ,or
governor, and, afterdeclaring that Ba xter had
usurped the ONCE, prsys that it may be
and that he ~ VIC ee os o. tne court,
courts the simple question of the contest for
the Office OF governor. Baxter demurred TO
the petition on the ground that the court
bad no jurisdiction in the case, and AFTER
wards on the 18th of April the court, in the
absence of the defendants counsel. over.
ruled the demurrer, and without further
pleadings or any evidence in the case. rend-
cred judgment for Brooks in accordance
with the prayer and petition. Brooks within
a few minutes thereafter without process 10
enforce the execution of the said judgment.
and with the aid of armed men
forcibly elected Baxter and took possession
of the governors Office On the next day
after the Judgment was rendered, Bakers
counsel made motion to set it aside, alleg-
ing, among other things. as the grounds
therefor, that they were absent when the
demurrer was submitted and the final iudg-
ment rendered; that the judgment OF the
court upon overruling the demurrer should
have been that the defendant should answer
over; instead of which final Judgement was
rendered without giving any time or oppor.
tunity to answer the complaint upon its
merits; that the counsel assessed damages
+t WITHOUT ANY u,py 4
$3.50.
~ oViuonce, ana, hnaiiyt snas the court had
no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the
suit. But the next dav this motion was
.,..
o y. u.ou ~ 'ne 0oui'' "nen .ne president,
In pursuance OF provision OF the United
States, is called upon by the executive of the
state to protect it against domestic violence.
II appears to be his duty to give the required
aid, especially when there is no doubt about
the existence of violence. But where two
persons claim to be governor and call upon
the president under the constitution, it be-
comes necessary for him to determine
which OF the persons is the
constitutional governor. The constitution
Of Arkansas is decisive of this question, as
between Baxter and Brooks. According TO
the constitution and laws of the state the
votes for governor were counted and Baxter
was declared elected and at once was
duly inaugurated. Assuming that no great
er effect is to be given to counting the votes
in the presence OF the general assembly than
ought to be given to similar action by
any board OF canvassers, yet when it comes
assemhlv ia Converted nv the const semGl
into a judicial BODY and its Judgment is ss
j
conclusive and final as is the Judgment or
Ine supreme couI. ol'ne sea'e on any matter
contest 1iead and n ro as.'eS e W sIen
according to the practice provided in such
cases and the controversy is INVESTED with
tne lIln anu enece oi ySuaclai pioceaure.
DIT, rs appeas 10 oisL sna' Mnen 'ne con,
asssnoh,y tba cafaateS Ut ~ 80 49, t,sn
doc;s;on as nnII;s1 and nrosond Sa ioos sHe
w. uooi'ion e' r ry ~ r,oe0ou =. nViV ~
1 1ne "a inanes 1he constfsutlona
the nroceedinos under If an emntv f,and I
an Sc,
State have no yieht to tru Contest abont the the
e. of ooyarnor h,t tLot ~ aci,,s;'.o
olnSo y. so'o.noi' ~. 'uas .no exclusive
~ nc one .,sas dIes'ioh y vested
dac;s;nn mSade hv the Snnr sne Eorrt
uo.io a. ~ Nou.s
upon .ne PRECISE QUESTION presented IN
tno case Vi DoOohs VS.. DdAIer. Derry was