Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1885-12-11
DECEMBER IL, 1885
rsa uamilton-County Case.

Tho Hamiiton-County Case.
A, last. we have the Providence
Joyrpors opinion in the case OF the
m.pdsmus issued by the Circuit Court
of Cincinnati compelling the certiiica'
ton Of the election Of thirteen Repuo-
lican candidates to the Legislature OF
Ohio. We quote
"The Dispatch is not endeavorlng
10 drive us into corner. 1t is OPEN
courteous, and audacious. 1t says
nothing now as to facts, but it appeals
10 the law. And it is in theory wholly
right. It fails when il applies the Prin-
cipIes Of law to given case. When 1t
saws that the overshsdowing con-
sideration is that the executive, legisla-
tive, and judicial departments of gov
eminent should be kept separate we
agree with it wholly. That is sound
Republican and Democratic doctrine,
the doctrine Of the fathers, and as i'm
portant now Is ever in the history of
our country. But that doctrine is
neither evaded nor violated by the deci-
sion of q judicial body, whether OF
higher or lower grade, that q statute OF
q State, being constitutional, should be
fully and potentially obeyed."
Surely it is both evaded and violated.
Let us see The Constitution says that
each house Of the Legislature shall be
the sole judge Of the elections, qualiti-
cations, and returns Of its own menu
bers. Now our Providence contem-
porary will not admit that any court
can Judge Of the election or Of the quail
fications Of q member Of the Legisla-
ture, yet inconsistently and illogicaHy
contends that the courts may pass upon
the returns. Let us ask what the
trainers of the Federal Constitution
meant when a hundred years ago they
provided that each house Of Congress
should be the judge Of the elections,
qualifications, and returns Of its own
members? Did they refer to the re-
turns made by the officers holding the
election? Nobody will deny that pro-
E position. They intended to provide
that the returns, let them be what they
might, should 60 to each house and be
there passed upon. They thought they
had forbidden just such interference
with the legislative department as the
Circuit Court Of Hamilton county has
been guilty of. They did not dream
that any court would dare to "cook"
the returns, and then send them to the
House of Representatives as the ere
turns +" upon which that body was to
pass.
Whatever may be the powers of the
courts as to members Of the national
House Of Representatives they have
the same powers as to the members OF
the United States Senate. Now, will
our Providence contemporary say that
any court, State or Federal, has the
right to pass upon the returns of the
election of United States senators
Dare Judge BOND or Judge Anybody
to intercept the returns Of election Of g
United States senator, and compel the
Clerk Of the House Of Delegates, or the
Governor Of the State, to certify the cleo
ton Of another man? If It cannot b'
done in the case of United States sen
ator it cannot be done in the case Of {
member Of the national House Of Re
representatives., and if not in those cases
1t cannot be done In the case Of mem
Der Of q State Legislature. All stan
on exactly the same footing.
The journals language is guarded
It says IL the statute Of the State
constitutional. it should be fully an
potentially obeyed. That is an admi'
sion that II the statute is not constit'
tional. il is null and void. Now, "
ask, wouldn't . statute be manifest
unconstitutional that should undertal
TO confer upon court the right
Judge Of the returns Of State senator
OF course il would be demonstrations
and no court could riehtfally take j
risdiction under its authority.
the name OF common sense, then,
the Legislature cannot pass q law .
thoriring . court to Judge Of the l
turns Of any senator's election, hi
can any court assume Jurisdiction wi,
out grossly violating the Constitutio
We quote the Journal again
"But the fundamental error Of
DispateA Is IN assuming that the rex
feation Of the returns is the final p
cess in the election. Each house Of
Lssislsturs ID the sole judge Of
Qualifications Of its members. 1t {
70 back Of al proceedings to the v,
vote and legal win Of the people.
nandamus can restrict its right or
authority. II can look, Is the Dispa
win not, ct the land all the) facts. sut
is law unto itself In the final dispc
ton Of The question. Our content
= rary 10 right - TO general principle
IL only vabbles when its party pr
or fear Is aroused"
That is the fundamental error /"
the JonrSsi; not ours. II allows
court to come to between the isgislsti
body and the people; whereas the CO
stitution requires the contest to
directly 70 the former. II each hou
can 80 back. - il can, Of I'll procss
ipgs, Why not lot that Be- douss WI
allow . court TO interfere which has
jurisdiction, end whose decision 10 o
binding upon shs Legislative body?
n . Federal Circuit Court shou
l. a a a - a.