The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1883-01-17
The Manning-Chalmers Case.

supplemental petition hled by James H.
Chalmers and sustained the views urged
by the counsel for Chalmers. The Judge
delivering the opinion, which was very
able and maturely considered, held that
the Court had jurisdiction Of the case,
and the authority to issue the prohibO-
tory order requiring the Secretary to
pause in his count or to add to the votes
given for Chalmers the 1872 votes,
which he afterwards in violation Of the
order, counted for J. X. Chambless, or
show cause to the contrary.
Proceeding to the discussion of the
question arising upon the certified state
ment and the tally sheet" accompany
ing the same, Judge Wharton held
that the supposed tally sheet" was an
unofficial document and should have
been disregarded by the Secretary of
State or that he had doubts as to which
Of the papers manifested the conclusion
reached by the Commissioners of Flee
ton of Tate county, it was his duty to
return both to the Commissioners for
yerifcation. The Court further adjudg-
ed that the subsequent action Of the
Commissioners Immediately after know
ledge Of the discrepancy in giving a
certified, tabular statement showing that
the votes cast at the several precincts
OF their county were for Chalmers and
not Chambless, rs they had ut first
determined, thus correcting the mis-
prision Of a clerk, was perfectly com
petent, and praiseworthy, and that
the Secretary of State should there
upon have recalled his certificate
issued in favor of Manning and given
another in lieu thereof and according to
the facts in favor of Chalmers Judge
Wharton illustrated his views on this
point by reference to the case of
Goode and Hurst when opposing candi-
dates for the position of Judge of the
High Court of Errors and Appeals made
vacant by the death of Chief Justice
Smith. In that case the certificate had
been issued by the Secretary of State to
Goode, but the returns from Amite and
Pike, before delayed by floods, was trans
mitted to the Secretary of State and
reached his hands after the lapse OF
"thirty days" Immediately following the
election. But the Secretary of State
and Governor, on the advice of the At
torney General, promptly recalled the
certificate and commission issued in
favor OF and TO Goode, and gave the Ger
tificate and commission to Hurst, who
counting the statements from Amite
and Pike, had received the majority Of
the votes cast.
In the course of his opinion the
Judge said that under the law, the Gov
ernor has no discretion but to issue the
commission to the person declared to
have been elected by the Secretary c;
State.
Commenting ON the case of Oglesby v
Sigman, relied upon by the Secretary ia
sustain his action, Judge Wharton said
it was not applicable to the Chalmers
Manning controversy. 1t was not here
attempted to reconyene the county com
missioners, and compel recanvass OF
the votes so as to make them reach a
different conclusion, nor was it intended
to affect them in any way. The Tate com
missioners OF their own free will execut-
ed a duplicate paper that truly and be-
yond doubt manifested the conclusion
really reached by them in the exercise
of their functions, as canvassing officers
in the first instance. The commissioners
were not fttaetps ofcio, being in Office at
the time under the statutes of the State,
and authorized to conduct all special
elections occurring during their term
and they had the right, in the faithful
discharge of their important duties, tC
correct the misprision that occurred il
this case. Any other view would frus
trate the viii Of the people as expressed
at the polls. The 0glesby-Sigman decis
ion, viewed in its relation to the facts in
volved, was right and had the support o
all the judges and lawyers so far a
he knew; but it was not predicated upon
the same state of facts existing in tn,
case under consideration.
Judge Wharton stated that, while thu
respondent was technically in contempt
he had no doubt his action was base,
upon his convictions of duty, and tina
he had intended no contempt of the
Court or its process.
The question of jurisdiction having
been decided, it is to be hoped that tn
trial of the cause will now proceed with
out delay upon its merits, in order tina
it may be iudicially determined who i