Daily Republican., 1882-06-20
Ninth War d Election Case.

from his colleagues, the Chancellor of
the State, Mr.. Salisbury and Associate
Justice Wootten, in the Court of Errors
and Appeals in the Ninth Ward elec.
tion case. 1t will be remembered that
mandamus was taken cut by Messrs.
Higgins and Bradford before the court
sitting at Georgetown, Delaware, to
compel the election inspectors of the
Ninth Ward at the little election in
October 1880, to award the certificate
of election to Ziba Ferris, who was
declared by the inspectors themselves
to have been elected by one majority.
1t will also be remembered that at that
election after the Inspectors had retired
to the City Hall to make up their re-
turn, they afterwards at the suggestion
of some politicians present threw out
Republican ticket supposed to have
been cast by a colored man named
Bush who was not legally qualified
voter. This made tie provided Bush
voted the Republican ticket. The
Democratic Inspector, Edmund 8
knight then away from the place where
the election was held, after tie had
been created gave a casting vote elect
ting the Democratic Inspector. The
mandamns was to compel Knight and
his Democratic Colleague to give the
certificate of election to Ziba Ferris as
had been originally decided upon at
the close Of the polls. 1t will be recol.
lected still further that the court then
sitting in Georgetown granted the writ
of mandamus as requested, but before
it could be served on Knight and Ken.
nedy his assistant who evaded the
officers in the serving Of the writ, the
Democrats through Ignatius g. Grubb,
ESQ, took an appeal to the Court of
Errors and Appeals which would not
meet to consider the case until long
after the decision of the case could have
any influence on the then approaching
election. The Democrats gained their
point, kept in an illegally elected In
spector which in the end availed them
nothing as the Republicans swept the
City and County.
The case rem aimed locked up in the
court of Errors and Appeals for nearly
two years, but in the regular course
of rotation came before the court some
three weeks ago when Chanceltr Sauls-
bury and associate Justice Wootten
agreed upon decision considered ad-
verse to the Republicans but Chief
Justice Comegys presented such a
strong minority decision that the pub
lie has no trouble in seeing that the
Chief Justice is right and that the de-
cision of the majority was influenced
entirely by partisan considerations and
decided accordingly.
Chief Justice Comegys being the
David Davis of Delaware, allied to no
political party, his decision cannot be
looked upon as partisan decision. He
says there was nothing in the question
before the court xcept as to who should
pay q sm all bill of costs, and yet it had
been pushed with a persistency as If
q large sum of money was involved, but
as the majority of the court had seen
proper to 90 as tar as they had the
Chief Justice also gave his decision in
the case though in minority. He
hesitates not to say that the certificate
delivered to johnson by Knight was a
usurpaton and further the court as
well as himself individually looked
upon it at least as a fraudulent act If
not criminal intent to prevent Iita
Ferris from acting as inspector at the
general election, and warming up with
the subject, the Chief Justice says "if
they do not disclose wantOn disregard
Of duty by Knight and Kennedy, an
nworthy purpose of defeating the law
of the State of its force and efficiency
through heretofore unthought of COLI
trivance, then 1t will be difficult to
show guilty conduct in any case by To-
gal proof"
The Chief Justice then goes on tt
review the question of an alternative
writ, though he treats it as a matter
hardly worthy of thought :" 1t would
be sad ,eproach to the administration
of Justice" said the Chief Justice, thai
where there is actual necessity for dis
pensing with the preliminary writ, the
general practice will yield to such ns'
cessity-that ircessant delay may moi
prejudice legal right"
The Chief Justice then considered al
length the right the inspector claim ed
of rejecting what he considered an un
lawful vote, and is very severe in hi'
condemnation of the inspectors at.
tempting to change the result. The in
spectors had nothing to do but to conn
the votes in the ballot box and an
nouncs the result whatever it mi ght be
and give certificate to the man havinl
the highest number OF votes. The onl,
time and place to decide the legality o
vote is when the voter presents hi
ticket at the ballot box. The questio
of jurisdiction is fully met by the CHE
Justice in the following paragraph:
The learned counsel for the plaintiff
in error seems to be In some confusion