The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-10-03

jure ONCE The supreme court OF the United states
There can DO no officer, either dc jure or de
facto n there Is no Office to fill Inc lmea
OF an officer implies the existence oil an ONO
which he holds II would he misappliCnuon o.
terms 10 call one an officer who holds no Office ana
apublic office can exist only by force OF law us
II In pcint Of TACT the person commissioned has
moi been duly elected, or there Is no Office Tor MIN
10 hold, though the commission so declare, ne IL
not entitled 10 be treated as an officer AcOmlnls
sion does not invest a person with the right TO Of
nce but the authority as an officer is derived from
the election by tho qualified voters, and not from
certificate OF election, nor the commission Oh
The appointment and commission OF person rs
njustice OF the peace, where there was no onlce 70
iii, has becifexprcssly held 10 be OF no validity
These views are amply sustained by the nuthort
ties, (See ~ Mo. $50, state vs.. McCann n MO liv
State vs. McCann 0 Ind @g besr , o, soI IahS.
son; Ala. 81. Wommack vs. Holloway ~ Ia
Ann. $50, State vs. Capers 81 Ala ~, heIu w
Moulton. O. Mo. IS, exparto snyder; lis u = 'l,
Norton VS.. shelby county, citing Tennessee cases
on the sublcctl ,
What would be the result II the effect contended
for by the claimants should bo conceded 20 IN, M
commissioners suppose the Governor Wrongiulg
or impropery--Or honestly but upon inaccurate OF
fabricated certificates Of election made by the sher
if-should issue commissions as justices ui ine
cocr 10 many persons not entitled to them, and 10
a number sufficient IN numerical Strength 10 com
pose majority Of This court van ~ De poss,p ns
Tenn osscc saws H. n miniature legislature, must
close its eyes to all the,iacts blindly recognize
these void commissions, aud permit their holders
On m In the court until their title may be adlud
Gated void In some other tribunal
Aud suppnsc tho Governor should issue such
commissions not 10 one but To every county 10 we
State The established orier Of things would DO
overturned aud the illegal commissions OF The
executive, and not the Tree voice OF the people
would decide who our magistrates should bc, The
commissions In question Il our views are correct
Are void and OF no validity. The county court Is
bound to know the law-it IL bound 10 know thnt
there arr no such offices ns those claimed. II N
evident to VS. from the authorities cited, rnd the
views above expressed that the commissions oi
the Governor do not authorize the claimants TO OK
ercise the functions Of justices " the peace nor en-
title them 10 seats In the county court
While the county court cannot determine the
right or title OF the claimants To the oces, yet as
poNcc who are duly elected and authorized by law,
that body has the right 80 determine thni none bul
such magistmies shall occupy seats IN the ooui'
and participate In Its deliberations,
A. TO one Of the claimants. Mr Henry lcichnnnn
the official returns Of the recent election chow
that he received votes TOT the once oi town or cor
pontion magistrate and not for justice NJ III,
peace for Inc fourteenth civil district and that b,
rccclvcd no votes outside the city " Memphis w
now claims IN he duly elected magistrate iot ih'
Fourteenth district.
This official returns also show that 1ato an,
shaw were voted for at the same election lo
Justices II the peace for the Fourteenth district %
the quslincd voters Tor the entire district, nn'
that they rccoiycd the next highest votes To Nounl
aud Elliott who wcro elected, Tate receiving 100
Shaw 2,O0', and Rclchmann Isis votes IN sid di-
trirt undof this state ul lhct II could not legally
h. certified that Rcichmann received votes emitting
him to commission from the Governor ~
Justice Of the peace Tor siid district Ia 10 even
can Mr. Rcchmann legally assert title "a this ollie
under thcsc iacls, ~ n the district were entitled
hthiri magistrate the claim aud right OF both Tat
and shaw would bo superior TO his
This opinion IL prcdicnicd on the assumption
that the tour,ccuth and Fifteenth districts hav
each already two mRristrates, duly elected nn
qualified. and who ARE nov hlschnHlng we uullss
fN..le Ia Ia
and title Thereto.
IL follows from the foregoing In our opiniol
that neither the Fourteenth nor the fiicrnt
Ciyil districts can legally have Third Justice
the ponce, and that neither Oi the claimants NJ
entitled 10 scat In the county court hospcclinll
Oronar H. PfrEm, Attorney General.
RICHARD d. JoEDAN, county Attorney
After the report had been read and sub
miticd to tho chairman, Squire Barr,
moved its adoption. Mr.. 4. II. Tczcvant
counsel for Squire Egncw, rnsc and mad,
vigorous and plausible argument In be-
hall Of his client, urging that 'Squiri
Egncw had presented 90 the court prm.
fncic evidence of his right 10 n scat in the
shape Of the Governors commission, anu
that the court had no right Ia pass upon
his title 10 the same. lie insisted that the
county court had no right To- pass upon
the validity Of Squire Egncw's commits
sion; that the road To such n proceeding
WIS plainly blnzod out 10y the constitution,
aud that II would have 10 DO done by the
attorney general, who could. In the nam,
OF the county aud state, institute piocccd
ings in either the chanccry or circui
courts. aud that the county court va
restricted 20 thnt remedy. Mr.. TfrEcyan
again aud again. and with great force O
statement and luCidity VI reasoning, main
fEsWtr.. Iasf..ur .stt,ts l..l.f..
court clothed with the hahilmcntS Of hi
Office, and that the county court had u,
right io question his title or deny hii
claim 10 seat II WIS. M inr ~ the cour
was concerned, question coram nof
judicc thc county court had NO iurislic
ton to pass upon the question. and "
undertook 10 do ~ would exercise ~
authority not conferred upon u 10y law
II the solyency II hiH hond ~. qucs
toned thc chairman had right 10 rcius
II, but upon lis naked right 10 scat ia
county count had no right 10 pass.
Squire Miller from outside the railiu
inicrpolaicd n few remarks intended
demonstrate that the question ai issue ".
strictly constitutional and not affected L
statutory provisions
Squire Barry said hc did not desire /
do any one an injustice, hut hcloyin
thcp was no such office ~ was claimed b
Egncw aud Rcichmann. be- did not thin
they had a right a. sit In the court
Chairman Slaughter court clcarl
has NO authority Ia determine any one
right to seat. The only point is tha
there II no such office ~ il claimed b.
Agncw and Bcichmann.
Mr.. Tpzcyant returned b. the charr,
lie said. II perfectly arrc with You
honor that this court has no authority {
pass upon any mans right tn q seat in thi
budy. hut | respectfully submit that yu
are doing this very thing ! assume Cha
every man wants Ia 10 what the law SIS
be- ought 20 do, and defy the production
OF any authority tn show that this cuuf
hos the power IN determine whether ia
claimants arr entitled to seats hero ur moi
Tho report tAyH there is mo- office. That
submit iHn lugul proposition aul ins..
thai lht Wupur place iU aUuIp % ~ in th
rhauryry ur circuit court 4 Rlv ID ia
startling proposition t'ml advanced hpp
That you have the right iH =. fha man
commission 10 defiance JuI declare hr Do.
no valid claim Co. fHIt You Hr. siui
ping. ! ny 10 with OH usIarI. beyond t'
line ~ your pOWCr marked uui hy ~
law. Your authority De- limited tu dp,Ilf
between contestants for the slmr pIac
! ask who d here io C1utcs lmrW afaIr
il there q man Who cHims tu have ID
cciyCi more yuI,s than hp iHr tho sat h
claims? You all luI none. and that b.
ing che ease, itiH mot Iur ih.a court to sa
BE- haas uo standing lpru anl must ami
elsewhere iDr ipi,L"
'Squiw s. T.. Young Mr. rrvna,
says W. have 900 right o. consider tII
question. / Bgrup with him. We LA,