Daily Republican., 1880-10-18
THIRD EDITION.
the aINra WARD CONTEST.

Farther Argument on che Rale for
q Masasmus IN GeoPgetown-De.
eislon To-day.
Special Correspondence CT the REPUBLICAN,.
GRoRoRrowN, Oct. l6.-Argument on
the rule TO show cause why mandamus
should mot be granted In the case OF the
election In the Ninth Ward, In vii.
mington, was resumed In Court to-day
at 10 O'Clock before Chief Justice
Ccmegys and Judge Wales.
Mr.. Robinson made his argument
against the rule.
The majority Of the judges having
signed the certificate, knowing they
were certifying to Johnson's election,
II was good valid certificate, whether
Mr.. Pierce, who was one Of the officers
knew II was flled or not. A princi-
pie Of law is that in all questions ola
public nature the majority shall govern
then claim that so far as the Law in q
msndamus case to compel parties to
give up certificates is concerned the
certificate is prima fAcie evidence OF the
election; that the holder would be
driven to pro quo warranto to get pos.
session Of the Office. But In this Uase
the law expressly says that the oertif
cate shall be conclusive, aud II ooDclu-
sive must necessarily decide as to the
incumbsncy OF the posssssor. It is a
clear principle OF law admitted by the
other side that you cannot try the title
to office In o mandamus, especially
where the incumbent is not party 10
the proceeding; that the whole pro-
whether by mandamus or pro
quo Warranto, there being before is
sued a valid certificate, is in indirect
of the spirit and text OF
the law, which says that the certificate
shall be conclusive, and the election
shall b contested for the reason that
The law considered II better that the
person wyong;ully claiming TO hold the
office Of inspector, II such case should |
occur, should hold the election rather
han there should be any uncertainty
about the proper party TO hold the
election, or, as suggested in the case,
hat there should bs two sets Of ballot
boxes.
The proof has not shown that Ziha
Ferris was elected. Both Gallagher and |
Pierce testify that only 407 persons
voted; that one Of them was a Rspubli.
IAN double vote, therefore by Law
hould have been cast ont; their afiida.
tits also show that 407 votes were cast.
The remedy the other side would seek
icing summary remedy, and as far as
ohnson Is concerned, an ex parte pro.
eeding they should have proved
learly to the Court that Ferris was
leCted, which they failed 10 do.
The closing argument was made by
ir. Higgins, who spoke in favor Of tho
ule. Mr.. Ferris did not claim an in
tvidual right, but acted upon that
'hich, by his election, became a public
uty. Mr.. Ferris had the majority Of
otes meant in the act and was duly
hosen. Mr.. Knight made out certif-
ate Of election, based not upon the list
'hich had been 30 mercilessly assaulted
= the other side, but upon the returns
lade out on the tally that Ferris had
% votes. This cannot be disputed. He !.
'ok up the line of argument that the
oil list was not the list 10 count from,
at from the voters. He went on to re
lew the character Of tho testimony and
} answer point made by Mr.. Robin.
IN, that the defendant had not the op. y
ortunity TO explain his position. II
"To this Mr.. Higgins said that when q
'lled yesterday afternoon, the defend q
1t threw himself under the protecting
lield Of the law, and his counsel ask.
that he might not answer any ques :
on for fear OF eliminating himesIf. =
o dwelt upon the fact that Mr.. \
nights admitting Mr.. Ferris election Il
I'd Of his promise TO give him the Ger > >
fcate in the morning. Speaking in
ply to Mr.. Robinson's point on the
IL list, he said that the witness, Gal. :
CHER, did not say that there could not
I'VE been any vote IL the box in addi.
IN to the 407 that he might have ne y
eOted TO pu. do wn. IL
lr. Higgins then argued the points at "
'ue upon the granting of the manda a
ne and the case was continued until +,
)ndaY when court will Yendar a do.