The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-06-19
JACKSON WARD
CASE DECIDED.
Judge Witt Saws He Has No
Jurisdiction.
CITES MANY AUTHORITIES.
Mr. Royal Will ASK Supreme Court
for Mandamus at Once ioCompci
Hastings Court 10 Tr, the Case.
The Opinion an ablc oae.

;,,6re Witt decided the jackson Ward
election contest cases yesterday ffofHtiis'
In A lengthy written opinion IN "hich ne
pyerrnled The motion TO relec. Gle con-
testees' pleas 10 the 1utisaietion " III
ro,rt in the cases: sustained the pleas ana
sis-,lssed The peiition of the realtors and
olacea The costs upon them
the rninion, which is a very abe ana
exhaustive one, opens by TeciilnS .-ie
r,et,tian Of the realtors on behalf Oh .as
contestants, and ten deals al ienS'i Win
~. question al issue, citing many decd
cd cases. both in this and other states.
10 sustain the oliIion that the court mas
y, jurisdiction in the case. but that IL
Is one which properly belongs TO the Coun-
ell of the city.
The opinion says that counsel for the
rpetitioneTs laid great stress upon 'ie
fac, that the members of the Board Ct
Aldermen and Common Council are OF
bcers within the meaning of Section $50
pf the Code under which they proceeded,
and thai If the section stood alone on the
subject, undoubtedly the contention would
be correct.
CONFLICT OF STATUTES
But such" says the court, is not the
ease When the Legislature came TO Legs
late generally upon the government OF
cities and towns, 1t said by Section 1880
nj The Code, that the council stall judge
of the election, qualification and returns
Of its members, etc.
These sections being in conflict, the
: court holds that, under the rule governing
q conflict of statutes on the same sub
iect, that the construction shall be given
to each which will carry into effect the
purposes for Which they were enacted it
Is easy to arrive at a proper decision.
The opinion then takes uD the Cahoon-
E!Iyson case, upon which il says counsel
for the contestant laid great stress, and
says that after a careful examination OF
this case il is found that the question of
jurisdiction was not raised as 10 the coun-
riIn1eu in that contest.
at vii, be observed says the opinion.
that ali the authorities cited by coun-
sci for the petitioners, are cases where
elections were held for general Offices IN
counties, and were in fact contests on
behalf of the officers themselves and the
question of municipal authority was not
and could not have been raised.
IN OTHER STATES.
The opinion then cites d California case
IN which il was held that the Corporation
Courts of cities had no jurisdiction IN
contests arising out OF elections for coun-
cilmen.
A Michigan case is also cited. w,1ich
says that -all proper cases are open to
judicial inquiry, but in cities where the
tenn of Office is short and IS of a local
rather than general interest, II has been
common from very early period in Great
ing their municipal legislatures. to give
them sthe same power and dissemination
in local affairs as is given the State Les1s-
lature in State affairs.
In this case. too, IL WAS decided. COM
firlning a long line of decisions, that the
council alone had jurisdiction 10 pass up
on the qualification and election OF its
members.
Gases decided along the same lines are
...s,
sachusetts. These decisions says the
court, ARE directly in point, and are in
accordance with the common sense of the
law The opinion concludes by saying:
1T would, indeed, be a most remarka-
bic position for the court to hold that it
had the power TO say who was and who
was no elected TO the Common Council,
and then certify its judgment to that
body. 10 be affirmed or annulled. as it saw
fiji. The Legislature never intended to
place the courts Of the cities in any such
position.
i am OF opinion that this court has
no right to interfere in the election of
councilmen and members of the Board.
IF, as has been charged in this petit
ton. there has been wholesale robbery of
ballots in Jackson Ward, the grand jury
has power to investigate and present for
prosecution those who have committed an
outrage against suffrage.
1.-The motion TO reject is overruled. the
pleas sustained and the petition will be
dismissed
TO ASK FOR MANDAMUS.
Mr.. W. L. Royal. counsel for the
petitioners, was seen yesterday afternoon,
and said he was at work on the papers
necessary to apply to the Supreme Court
for mandamus to compel the Hastings
Court TO try the case.
Many able lawyers who heard the opinion
OF the court pronounced it a model of
judicial clearness and ability.
There were many prominent local politi-
pal leaders in the court-room. and much
interest was manifested in the decision.