The New York herald., 1874-10-05

pie OF the state The Presidents Judgment upon
1t, as soon as pronounced binds the Governor, the
people and every one else. as Mr.. OConor admits.
How, then, can the President by a second judg-
ment, In q controversy between the same parties,
presenting precisely the same questions, reverse
his first ruling, as to af1ect them or impair any
rights vested in either party by virtue OF his orig!
MAJ actlonS
Second.-How does the matter stand on author
ity2 In the case OF Asplnwal VS.. Knox County
t21 Howard) the facts were these Under . law
passed by the Legislature OF Indiana the Ohio and
Mississippi Railroad Company was chartered and
the twelfth section OF the charter authorized Knox
county to subscribe for shares in the company II
majority OF the people OF the county should ap.
prove OF it, and, by the second section OF sub
sequent act the Sheriff directed to give notice
oil the time OF holding an election. to enable the
people to pass upon the question. The Commls-
sloners OF the county, protesting to act under this
authority, did subscribe, and the bonds in suit
were issued in payment Of that subscription. The
county objected that the bonds were ille-
gal, because proper notices OF the election
mad not been given, and this TACT was assumed to
be true. The Court below and the Supreme Court
decided that the iact was immaterial. The ground
OF this ruling was that ii was necessarily left to the
Commissioners Of the county TO decide whether
notices had been properly given or not. and that,
having decided II BY issuing the bonds, the de-
clson was final and binding upon the county.
This ruling has been recognized in several subse-
quent cases by the same tribunal. The adoption
Of the constitution Of the United States was sub
mitted to conventions Of the people OF each State,
and was by them, respectively, ratified. Could
any State, after such ratification. have withdrawn
IL Was not its action final Mr.. O'Conor will,
take for granted, admit that 1t was.
In the case OF Virginia vs. West Virginia III
Wallace} ruling was made by the Supreme Court.
which seems TO me to be strikingly applicable to
the point under examination. The original State
OF Virginia had been divided into two States,
Called respectively, Virginia and West Virginia.
The counties Of Berkeley and Jefferson we've not
included IN the then boundaries OF tue latter State,
but Virginia anerward, by law, authorized the
people OF those two counties, at elections to be
held in the manner prescribed, to determine
whether they would remain in that State or be
annexed to West Virginia. The returns OF
these elections were directed to be made
to the Governor OF Virginia, and on
his being satisfied that the elections were
tar aud in all respects legal he to certify the
result to West Virginia. This he did, and advised
West Virginia that the two counties had deter
mined to become parts OF that State. Alterward
the State OF Virginia nled a bill in the Supreme
Court Of the United States against West Virginia
TO recover possession OI Lne cOunLleS, ana In sup
port OF the claim alleged that the elections were
never properly held, but were fraudulently con-
Quoted, and that the Governors decision was
because OF his having been deceived as TO the fact
The Court on hearing dismissed the bill, holding
that the decision OF the Governor was conclusive
upon the point IN controversy, no matter how
illegal the election may have been. The language
Of the Court ls:-"We are OF opinion that the
action OF the Governor Is conclusive of the
VOTE" And yet II Mr.. O'Conors doctrine
is correct, how could Virginia have
been held bound by the action Of its Governor op-
tanned by means oil fraud and contrary to the clear
intent OF the statute under which he acted? II the
President has right to reverse or recall decis-
ion OF his on the matter IN question why should
not virginia have been authorized to retain within
her limits the TWO counties referred to II she could
make it appear that they were discovered from
her without her authority and by means OF trick
or contrivance? Upon the whole, then, conclude
that Mr.. O'Conors view has no support, either in
principle or on authority.
With much regard, your onedient servant,
REvERDY JOHNSON.