Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-11-23
QUESTIONING vIRGINIA'S VOTE.
Judge Bonds Intimation that Quo
Warranto Is the Proper Proceeding.

TIE STAR's published statements announcing
what the nature of the litigation will be over
the presidential vote in Virginia have been ex-
tensively copied in other newspapers and have
attracted widespread public attention. In this
same connection some additional points from
the decision Of Circuit Judge Bond, in the cele-
brated case Of the electoral college Of South
Carolina, win be of interest. The first and
most vital question to the Virginia complain
ants is will the federal court give countenance
in jurisdictional way to the inquiry which is
sought to be made into alleged election frauds
in their state.
The decision Of Judge Bond, bearing some
what on this initial point is only to be found
in LIST Hughes Reports of Cases Decided in the
Fourth Circuit. In that case the board of
state canvassers of South Carolina, composed
of b. E. Hayne, Thos. c. Dunn, F. L. Cardoza,
VIM. Stone, and Henry W. Purviss, met on the
10th day Of November, 1876, in Columbia, and
organized for business. They sat until the 22d
day Of that month and then adjourned without
day. In canvassing the returns for members
Of Congress and for electors of President and
vice-President, and certifying the result
thereof, they were compelled, it appears, to
declare the election of certain state officers,
there being blended and commingled in the
one entire election certain state as well as
federal officials.
During the session Of the board certain rela-
tors moved and obtained from the supreme
court Of the state orders restraining the board
from acting in judicial capacity or inquiring
into any matter not appearing on the face of
the returns. These orders further directed the
board to perform the merely ministerial duty
OF aggregating the returns of the several boards
Of county canvassers and to report the results
to the court. Finally the court directed the
h<o ID IN ,fxy he al 80 a<nro
representatives in the general assembly of that
state Of all persons who by the report Of the
board on the face of the returns and under the
rule Of aggregation as laid down by the court
were shown to have been elected. Declining
SO to do the members of the board we're ajudged
to be in contempt, were committed to the COM
mon Jail of the county and fined 81 500 each.
They thereupon petitioned the federal circuit
judge for release, averring that they were I'M
lawfully imprisoned for acts done in pursuance
of the constitution and laws of the United
States.
In concluding his opinion Judge Bond said
that he thought this proceeding of the supreme
court was beyond the jurisdiction of that tri-
bunal; that the board were clothed under the
law with discretionary powers which required
them to determine and certify the candidates
elected after scrutiny, and that as this was a
general election at which members of Congress
and electors of President and Vice-President
were to be chosen, they were acting in fed
eral capacity and entitled to the protection of
the courts of the United States.
In preceding part of his opinion the follow
ing significant reference is made to the remedy
by quo warranto, relied on in the Virginia pro-
ceedings: If they (the boardD decided erro-
neOusly or falsely the remedy Of those candi-
dates who thought themselves wronged was by
quo warranto, but no court had the jurisdic-
ton to compel the state canvassers to do other
wise than their own judgment dictated"