The Morning herald., 1877-02-26
AN UNJUST JUDGEMENT:
CONTRACT NOT BINDING.

CONTRACT NOT BINDING
A compact was made, to stand by the
decision of the1Elcctoral Commission, and
in honor and conscience such contract blno
all parties to it, unless some overpowerlng
reasons exists for to carry it out. one
reason at all times is sufficient to justify
sucb breach lis fraud, Injustice, or par
tialitv, in the arbitrators who are appoint
ed to settle the respective rights OF parties
under the instrument. In the matter OF
the commission, if it becomes apparent
that one of the Commissioners Judge
Strong decided the cases Of louisiana and
Florida, in direct conflict with a decision
Of the Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania, In
= case where he was sitting and asserting
Judge; [leaving the thirnbleriggery of Hoar
andEdmunds out of the question atpresent]
the reason for boiling the decision exists.
We undertake to satisfy our readers, that
Judge Strongs decision as Commissioner
is so palpably at variance with that he
made in the case of Cross vs.. Holloway,
A Penn. State Reports, page 2lO, as to
Justify the conviction, that his was a dis
honest and fraudulent judgement in the
great appeal of the American people,
against perjury and forgery in Louisiana,
and Florida Why is it that neither the
advocates before the commission, nor the
pres, of the country have not flung Cross
vs.. Holloway, in Strong's teeth is account
able.
The case of Cross W. Hollaway, came
before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
on a writ of Habcas Corpus, paving for
tho discharge Of J. B. Cross from the East
ern Penitentiry.on On the ground that he was a
pardoned convict. The 'res.getsa, was how
far The great seal of Penn'a. attached to hi
pardon, imported consideration and verify
andwhether a court could 60 behind it to in
quire how obtained. The case was of SC
much Importance, that the Supreme Cour
departed from its usual practice, and heart
the writ in banc-or before a full bench
''~ The Judges were Lowrie, Woodward
Thompson, Strong, and Read the Attorney
General was VIM. NJ. Meredith. In IL,
annals of American jurisprudence, it woult
be difficult to find an array of legal abilit,
coequal to the Court and Attorney Genera
that heard, and decided the question. Il
addition W. 3. Mann one Of the first pros
ecuting officers in the country, aided til
Attorney-G General Meredith. Bear il
mind, that the pardon Of Crosse, was plead
ed in the exact way, and for purpose an
intent, perfectly similar to that Of the cel
tifcates of the States we have named:-
that behind the broad seal and certifcat
the Court dare not go. The counsel 70
Crosse-in his argument at page PIG of th
book we refer:-stands upon propositio
of law, the counterpart Of that Of Evar,.
and Matthews, "parol evidence cannot b
given to vary or control the certificate
pardon" Meredith and Mann, take tn
ground that a grant, or certificate, ob.aine
by false suggestions, wnErHn THE FAILS
SUGGESTIONS WERE OR WERE NOT MAD
BY THE PARTY BENEFITED BY THE GRAN
was absolutely void. See page 2l5.
What does Judge Strong decide? "W
think, that this pardon (certifcate) is vol
because of the false and forged represents
tions and papers that were used in or
curing it from the Governor" Is not tn
the case of Louisiana and Florida. Certjt
Gates obtained by false suggestions a,
forged representations %&"A rardo,
say the court and Judge Strong with /
sardonic smile asserting "is to be dsa]lo
ed by the judges Of their own motion,