, 1880-09-13

Capt. Hill and his friends TO keep the
voters in ignorance of the law and the
facts delivered by the Chiet Justice. which
certainly could not be ascribed to any
desire for an open and fair discussion of
a question OF such great public concern>
ment When the matter could be no
longer suppressed-and not till then
Capt. Hill comes before the public
through his two papers-both daily"
with statement to which is appended
the bought arguments of two Attorneys,
to rebut, without mentioning the decision
of the Court. These Attorneys, who have
for a suitable consideration, attempted to
make case for their client to aid him in
his election, are respectively ]. r. Lewis,
Esqr., who was superseded by Judge
Greene as Chief Justice, fer causes satis>
factory to the President and the Depart
ment of Justice, and James Mcknight,
Esqr., who, commencing the practice of
the law with "just enough of learning to
mlsquote," has, by nnylelding pertinaci
ty and untiring diligence, achieved the
equivocal distinction of "smart law
yer" Upon the question of judicial
courtesy involved in the act of members
of the bar traversing decision of the
Court through the public prints ior per
sonal or party purposes, it is due to Mr..
Mcknight to say, that his argument ante
Oates the Judges charge, and, If reports
be true, was given to Capt. Hill as con-
sideratlon for the support of Sheriff
Wyckoff by the latter, pending the Re-
publican nominating Convention. But
the secret ballot was adopted by SAID
Convention to cover up all bargains of
that character.
This, however, has nothing to do with
the question at issue. The Attorneys
undoubtedly made the best case for their
client of which they were capable, the
intention being to fool the people into
his support at the polls and stave off
further judicial action But if either of
them had offered such an argument as
| judicial decision, he would have subjected
himself to the derision of all well in
formed lawyers, as well as intelligent
citizens
Both arguments are alike in this, that
they are based upon acts existing prior
to 1878, utterly ignoring the fact that
issued in 1878, contained all the general
laws Of the United States then in exist
ence, and that all acts not included there
in were obsolete The only provisions
pertaining to the question in controversy
which can be found in the Revised Stat-
utes of 1878, are in section 1854: No
person holding commission or appoint
ment under the United States, except
postmaster, shall be a member of the
Legislative Assembly, or shall hold any
office under the government of the Ter
ritory;" and in section 1860: No per-
son belonging to the Army or Navy shall
be elected to OF hold any civil office OF
appointment in any Territory" There
has been no repeal or amendment Of these
provisions since 1878. Section 1929 says:
g No officer on the active list shall hold
any civil Office" etc., which Judge Lewis
construes to mean that " officers on the
retired list may hold civil offlce' That
construction is discredited by the fact
that the same Statute specifies what civil
Office an officer on the retired list may
hold by appointment, to wit: "OfliceIs
selected by the Board of Commissioners
of the Soldiers Home" Whereas, sec
ton 1860 includes all persons " "belonying
to the Army and Navy" as positively
excluded from holding any office under
tile gocernment Of any Territory. Officers
on the retired list are all included in the
chapter of the Revised Statutes entitled
The Army" and are no where spoken
of or referred to but as "belonglng to the
Army.
Judge Lewis quotes from the Organic
Act of Washington Territory as follows:
THAT no person belonging to the Army
of the United States shall ever be elected
to orhod any civil office in the Territory"
and remarks : "This provision is common
to all the Territories and in The Revised
Statutes is noted as section 1S60;' and
proceeds to argue that it has been repeal
ed or modified by subsequent Congress
ional legislation. Judge Lewis knows,