The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-04-18

grant the writ of mandamus, where, if
issued, it would prove unavailing.
Highs Extraordinary Legal Remedies,
section IA.
In this case the Secretary of State
having declared Manning to be duly
elected, and the Governor having COM
misSioned him upon such declaration.
we adopt the language of the Supreme
Court of Mississippi in the similar case
OF Bland vs.. Rodman, 43 Missouri, 256,
and say, The case has passed beyond
any control of this court and the only
redress the relator has, if he considers
himself aggrieyed, is by a legal contest
made IN pursuance of law" In that
case the writ was denied because the
Secretary of State had certified To the
Governor the result of the election and
the Governor, acting on that, had com
missioncd another than the rolator.
In People TX. rel, Thompson VS.. Co
yer, 30 ILL.,. page 100, mandamus was
denied because another than the relator
had been declared elected, and had been
commissioned, and SO in Sherburne vs..
Horn, 45 Mich. l60.
The distinction between cases in which
the final act of investing the person de-
clared elected with the evidence of his
election, had been done. and those in
which it has not, is fully illustrated in
the cases of Florida, FIX. rel, Bisbee VS..
Board of County Canyassers, IL Fla, 8,
and same VS.. Inspectors of Election, Id.
26, and same VS.. Board Of State Can.
yassers, Id, %, and same VS.. Drew, Gov
ernor, Id, In the first of these cases the
Board of Canvassers of Alachua county
was compelled to return the votes cast
In the second the inspectors of precinct
were commanded to make certain re-
turns. In the third, the Board of State
canvassers was required to assemble,
and recount the votes and give q certih-
cate of election to Bisbee, who then de-
manded of the Governor commission,
in accordance with this certificate The
Governor refused his demand on the
ground that he had, ON the former de-
claration of the result of the election,
issued commission to another in ac-
cordance with it. Bisbee applied for
mandamus to compel the Governor to
give him commission. but the court
refused it. In State VS.. Governor,
butcher (25 n. J.) 33l, the writ was re-
fused when asked to require the Governor
TO issue commission in opposition to
the declaration of the result Of the elee-
ton as made to him by the officers
charged with the duty of declaring the
result, although it appeared that the de-
cision of the board declaring the result
was contrary to the truth Of the case.
In State VS. Fletcher, Governor, 80
Mo, 339, the court refused to issue q
handamus to require the Governor to
issue commission, and to this effect are
many other eases.
In VHara vs. Powell, IS No. Car, 1903,
in which one had been candidate for
representative in Congress sought man
damus to compel the persons composing
the Board of county canyassers of Edge
comb county to rc-assemble and make Il
new and fuli recount, 80 as to include
certain votes omitted in their former
count, the court having assumed from
the time elapsed that the State canvas
sars had acted on the returns made to
them, and declared the result and that
commissions had been issued to those
declared to have been elected, said
"rhe case has therefore proceeded so
far that no judicial order in the action
can change or affect the result" Ii
could only result, the court further said,
'in making two inconsistent determin-
ations, and, perhaps, third mondamus
become necessary to compel the issuing
Of second commission for the same
office. In an election of a member Of
the general assembly or a representative
Of Congress, contesting claims to a scat
must be tried before the body TO which
the certificate of election or commission
accredits the person holding it, and the
decision there made is final and irrever-
sable" That court after showing that
no action it could take could disturb the
person who had been commissioned as
Representative in Congress, or assist the
petitionerin his contest before the House,
Iefused to do the useless act OF issuing
the writ of mandamus, and dismissed the
petition for it. That court conceded the
propriety and utility of the writ, "whih
the political machinery in motion and
the result undetermined" but as the
matter was ended by the final act of the
iotdOc OliCldIs III dCCIeulLli1R one aS ~ Iep-
resentative in the House of Representa-
tives, it was remitted to that house to
deal with, and dispose of all questions
involved in the controversy. These cases
rest upon sound principle, as we believe
and command our approval. A commits
sion issued by the Governor is irreyo-
cable. He cannot revoke t,except in cases
Of his appointee, removable at his pleas
ure. Marbury VS., Madison, | Cranch 1877.
Ewing vs.. Thompson, 43, Pa. st. 872.
1t must stand until vacated and an
nulled by body which has the right to
investigate the facts of the election, and
decide who is elected to the office. The
statute requires the Secretary to sum up
the votes cast, as shown by the returns
made to him, and TO declare the result
to the Governor, who commissions. The
Secretary Of State is not required To
issue any certificate or paper TO the per.
son elected. He simply declares the
result and the Governor furnishes the
credentials which accredit the person de-
clared by, the Secretary to have been
elected. This constitutes the credential.
spoken Of by the act Of Congress which