Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1891-05-26
THE OElGADO CASE,

The supreme court of the United States,
after deliberation extending over four
weeks, yesterday rendered its final deci-
sion in the Delgsdo habeas corpus case,
affirming the judgment of the territorial
supreme court and disappearing the views
of Chief Justice OBrien.
Judge Seeds is to be congratulated on
this handsome vindlcation. 1t must be
very grateful to him both personally and
officially, considering the unjust criticism
and law ISLANDERS to which he has been sub
jected, merely because he dared to perform
courageously conscientious duty.
1t is to be hoped that now the public
mind will be appeased, and that political
malevoIence will give place to cheerful
obedience to law. There can be no doubt
that every proposition tending to support
the opinion Of Chief Justice OBrien was
presented to the supreme court by Con-
gresham Springer. Mr.. Knaebel, on his
return from Washington, spoke in COM
plimentary terms of the effort made by
Mr.. Springer and his associates in behalf
of their client, and his commentator was
probably justifable.
AS we understand from the printed
briefs in the case, the points made by
Delgado's counsel were, in substance, that
Judge Seeds had no power in mandamus
case to compel obedience by imprison-
ment, but was limited by statute to the
imposition of fine Of $3.50; that he could
not try the mandsmus or punish con-
tempt except in term time; that he inn
properly refused trial by jury and, es-
pecially, that he unlawfully attempted to
try the title of the conflicting claimants
to the county commissionerships, by
mandamus, instead Of by quo warranto.
On the other hand, Mr.. Knaebel con-
tended that the fine of $3.50, specified in
the law, was not intended as a punish
ment for violating mandamus, but as an
independent penalty for any inexcusable
official neglect proved in the case; that
the district court had inherent power to
compel obedience to it's orders; that the
proceedings could lawfully be taken out
of term time because the law keeps the
court always in session for such purposes;
that the court being open to award the
writ of mandamus remained open for the
purposes of it's enforcement; that trial by
jury is not constitutional right in such
consider and override Delgado's answer
as matter of law; that the title to office
was not involved in the case except in
cidentally, and that, even if it had been,
the best authorities permit such title to
be investigated in mandamus, especially
in cases of mixed possession Of the Office !;
that Delgado ought to have appealed d.
rectly instead of defying the court; and
that the judgment Of the district court
could not be collaterally questioned. A
vast amount of authorities were cited by
both sides, and some of the questions
were discussed; but it would seem that
the U. S. supreme court has placed its de-
cision on the ground that Judge Seeds
had lawfully Jurisdiction to make his Or
ders in the election cases; for the record
presented also the fact of the mandamus
order in the Reads case, brought to re-
lieve the people from the ballot box fraud,
and the steal OF the Galsteo ballot boxes
and returns, which showed large Re-
publican majority, and which were stolen
by members of the gang from the custody
of a Democratic clerk and Democratic
county commissioners.
The case was gained, as much because
it was right and proper and just that it
should be, as on account of the mastery
presentation OF every phase OF 1t and ques-
ton in it by Mr.. John H. Knaebel, who
had principal charge of it from the be-
ginning in the district court and in the ter
ritorial supreme court he was assisted by
Solicitor General Bartlett and in the su-
preme court OF the United States he
appeared alone for the territory.
1t is well known that Mr.. Knaebel is a
close student, untiring, clearheaded, a
cogent reasoner, a fine orator and of
great and ready knowledge of law,
it's principles, presidents and de-
cisions. His arguments in the
lower courts were master pieces, and
he simply did magnifcently before the
highest court of the land. The numer-
GUS decisions cited by him in support of
his arguments and his position were ex-
tremely well chosen, to the point and
clinchers.
The decision OF course was expected in
the manner and form in which it was
rendered, and is great victory for the
good and honest citizens of New Mexico;
it puts the stamp Of disapproval upon
chicanery and legal tricks, upon ballot