The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1877-01-04
THE PRESIDENT OF TIE SENA 7,E
In our remarks last Week on tn.

However we have no doubt that Con-
gress Will claim the right to 90 behind
the returns and ascertain whether or
not they are legally and fairly made.
And if both houses could agree the
people would accept the result as final.
In case of q disagreement, which is
almost certain, we hope the President
Of the Senate will perform a duty never
before questioned, and that the man
who is declared elected after such count
will be inaugurated.
Since the above was published the
New York Independent of December
2sth has come to hand with an article
on.the same subject, and taking the
same ground. The Independent says:
II the two houses of Congress shall
fail to solve the existing complication
in respect to the next counting of the
electoral votes, the exigency of the case
will compel the President Of the Senate
to assert his own prer0gatives i'll the
matter. The votes must he counted
and the result officially declared; and,
whether the two houses can agree with
each other or not, he certainly can agree
with himself. lie has the power by
the Constitution, and in the emergency
supposed it would he his duty to exer-
else it.
The Independent also quotes from
number of text-writers on the Constitu-
tion showing that the President of the
Senate is the constitutional counter
of the electoral vote and that the
two houses of Congress are simply wit
nesses of the transaction.
JUDGE DTCKINSOVS DECISION:
STG1STGES Fl H 81 S1SGE3' IS.
DISTRICT COURT,
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, !
Aaron p. Miller and Ransom
+. HumistOn, partners as
Miller, Humiston & Co.,
Against
Charles z. sutton and Daniel
ROhrer.
ORDER ON MOTION UPON PLEADINGs.
Upon hearing the motion Oil the part
of plaintiffs III this action defendants
opposing) for IN order requiring de-
PENDANTS to elect upon which OF two
alleged inconsistent detences, they will
rely, and striking out the fifth subdi-
vision of the answer;
It's considered that III the Sd and
4tll subdivisions of the answer are set
up which are in their nature inconsist-
ent with each other. IT plaintiffs were
not in possession, but third party ,Uds,
under whom defendants acted (which
il one defence), then plaintiffs could
confer no license to enter which could
have any force or virtue rs Il defence
for acts otherwise trespass and un-
lawful. So OH the other hand, the Civ
ing of a license by plaintiffs to defend
ants t. enter the premises, il it is to- be
allowed any virtue rs Il defence, is i'll
consistent with possession in defend
ants or their alleged principals.
1t is therefore ordered that offend
ants elect upon which OF tle two mat
ters of defence set forth III the answer
they will rely in the trial of this action
whether upon the denial Ut possession
in plaintiffs and the allegation of pos
session in the Trustees of the Metl,o-
dist Episcopal Clu, 81, IL Wort!ington,
or upon the allegation. of license from
plaintiffs to enter the premises in cues
iion and to remove the goods tl,erefrom
and that defendants signify the manner
III which they will exercise such cleo
ton by filing with the clerk of this
court, within ter, days after notice OF
this order u statement thereof, or by
amending their answer herein so as to
C inform to tins Ovde". i .,, ~ =. -
Ordered further; that the motion to
strike, out the fifth subdivision Of the
answer be and it is denied.
Mankat0, Dec. 18th, 1876. =.
b.. ID. A. DICKINSON, Z
SIS. .5 ... !, I. s District Judge.