Idaho semi-weekly world. [volume] (Idaho City, Idaho Territory) 1875-1908, 1890-03-04

contested election case was tried, was
unconstitutional and void; to say that
the act 10 unconstitutional and VOID,
and that the proceedings under it
may be valid, is an ahsurdity too pat
cut to To discussed. This Court re-
versed the Court below. Reversed
what? Reversed its decision? No.
It simply declared that there was
nothing TO decide; that the act under
which they were proceeding was in
itself void; and as a matter of course
the proceedings themselves could not
possess more validity than the act
under which they proceeded. Then
why should it be sent back? Sent
back for another trial under hn I'M
constitutional act? But this discus
sion may be ended by declaring that
when the Supreme Court held the act
of January 80, 1885, to be null and
void, tho case of German against
Havrd no longer existed, and as
legal entity, so far as its having any
possible effect upon either Of the par
ties to the suit is concerned, never
had existed.
We now pass to the record. We
find an entry on the nth of March
declaring that tho Judgment Of
the lower Court is reversed; an
other on 18th to the effect that it
should be dismissed and on the 10Th,
two of the judges personally have re-
considered what the Court did on the
18th, and restored the action of the
18th; or at least attempted so to do.
Perhaps it is as we'll to pass this rec
ord with this statement. For, wheth-
er it be a true record or not, it is en-
titled to but little consideration; and
the more it is studied the more doubt
it creates as to how the opinions of
the Court were decided and how that
particular decision was announced.
1t amounts to but bubble at best.
The one entry declares that the Court
below shall proce cd us 1t may deem
best, and tho other, that the action
shall be dismissed. The opinion of
this Court was certified down to the
Court below; and no matter what the
Court below may have thought, there
was but one thing for it to do, and
that was to dismiss the action. And
this brings us down to the next point
in the matter, or to the next bubble
presented, namely, whether this
Court shall send the case back to be
dismissed by the Judge of the dis
trict, or whether this Court shall or
der it dismissed. 1t is distinction
without difference. When the Su
preme Court thus clearly indicated
the invalidity of the law and the inev
| table status of the case under it, tn,
applicant should have had his money
and the expense of this litigation
ended. Tho case having been re
|, turned, however, we find that it ha
been continued from time to time
; and the plaintiff is still carrying OF
tho expense of conducting tho exec
, ecutive business of the county with
> out pay, and, Judging of the futur,
by the past, without prospect of eve
a.. having any, OF without any probabil
8 ity of ever reaching settlement O
! the legal questions involved.
| Let there be no misunderstanding!
about the conclusion reached thi
, time. The case ought to have bee
, dismissed. 1t was the Intention o
{ the Supreme Court year ago that
should be dismissed, and the reter
/ ton of the case in Court, and its con
, tinuance, did not, and does not afior
the plaintiff not only a speedy and ad
equate remedy at law, hut affords hir
, no remedy at all. Under such cor
, dltion OF affairs he was authorized t
appear before this Court and declar
that he had no speedy and adequat
, remedy at law and invoke the extra
ordinary powers given this Court t
secure to him the rights and priv
legos guaranteed him by law.
: Let il not be understood that tn
, intervenor or the Commissioners ar
|. in any manner at fault. They wer
5 bound by the remittitur sent down t
them; aud unless the Judge saw f
to act in accordance with tho implie
0 order of the Court, these parties ha
. no alternative but to await the RENE
: DIV or the relief that time would brinl
b. The intervenor, German, is but exei
;. cising the right of citizen in cor
n testing this election; aud until til
a act under which he was proceedin
was declared unconstitutional an
!. void, he was pursuing methods pr,
4 scribed by law. 1t is no wonder tina
|. under the conflicting entries in tn
= records of this Court and the REMIT
II tur sent down, both counsel aud cl
. ent were at loss to know VIII,
\ steps to take or in what manner I
q proceed.
. We now pass to the question of fees an
u salary claimed by plaintiff, and the di
d tinction, if any there be, az to the amour
II due on account of salary and the amour
due by law as allowed by the Board f
- expenses and fees In the absence of
statute on the subject, plaintiff would
It entitled to receive both the salary al
10 the fees pertaining to the office of sheri