The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-11-29
.ouence and not a right was sought to be
sredreSScd here.

! .auepce4 and not-a right was sought to be
sredressed here.
FIGHT AGAINST STATE.
/ The speaker argued ably tnat the hghts
/ was one against the state, and that no.
thing more nor less co'iiu oe .Iiso OF 1t.
s.. He defined the duties Of the State Board
of @Caryassers and said they acted IN
# con ormity with the acts of Congress and
{ tte Ia ws9of Virginia The only function
Of the board was to represent the poltl-s
cal anu governmental action OF the
3 State aud Therefore the suits were
1. suits against the State. was like cases
where the court had often declined to
s take jurisdiction. and the interests sought
81 to be protected were purely OF a political
i nature.
Is Judge sWadlill asked how about the
I case of slemp vs.. zRhea5 in the Supreme
Court of Virginia Mr.. Christian replied
I. t},af9tl,a cases were entirely different. One
Il was seeking to compel the board to do
Its duty and the other to restrain 1t from
Reforming duty specified by law and
sanctioned by Congress. t1e did not be-
l;eye anyB case could be cited where a
& co,.rt If eo,1itv had taken Jurisdiction
I where in iuries to political rights were
sought to be redressed. Mr.. Christian
c;,ad a recent South Carolina case, which
che said bore him out in his contention.
( that the jurisdiction OF the court o.
equity did not extend. here NJ wise
arose to ask a question. ana IL was wheth-5
Or this argument bore upon the right OF
! tic court ia issue the writ of prohibition
I sn1:eht but Mr.. Christian quickly seated.
sti,.1 ~ replying that he could not and
q would not undertake to discuss more than
4 one of the questions Involved at one time.
j Mr.. Christian went on with his cita-.
Z tions and argument. speaking al 81 inc
while with great earnestness.s lie claln1e:.
that the doctrine laid down by himself.
sl,,,, .hee., adhered to since the foundation.
z of the government. and ne passed 70
another ground in the answer.
ANOTHER GROUND
! II was that any restraint of the Board
i OF Canvassers in the performance oil us
4 duties interfered with the rights of the
z House Of Representatives. and the court
( had no right to- do this. The ground upon
Which the suit was brought was that the
election was void and he asked what
would become of the rights Of the House
Tin the matter. They may reverse US.
replied Justies Fuller. aye. and they may
4 do more, replied Mr. Christian. They
/ may disregard you and the nernberS-eiect
LOT the House from Virginia may disregard
$you and go to Washington and ask to be
/ seated.
He said that If the doctrine of Captain
!
: tile Federal Congress would depart and
III. woui:a be in the power of Federal
/ Judge to change the complexion of the
T House upon application. If any one had
injured the clients of Mr.. Wise. 1T was net
1.-THE. State Board OF Canvassers. but the
Eoard Of Registrars. and the right par
| ties We're not in court. The case was a
| moot and abstract one, and should have
] no place in any court.
IF the neOulaj represented here mad a
right to enjoin against counting he had
a right to proceed on behalf of all those
| who did vote to compel by mandamus
TIE board to count and issue certificates.
1t was but an effort to induce the court
| to pass upon the validity OF the Consu-
tuition of the State on a moot case
There was no need for@the relief asked
/ here. even il it was not Objectionable
otherwise.
Mr. Christian now passed to the con-
sideraton of the question Of Jliflsdietlon4
with relation to the writ of mandanus
OF prohibition. Except under a certain
section of the Revised Statutes he cons
tended the court had no Jurisdiction
i Mr. Christian cited many cases where
/ the courts had held that the Circuit
Courts had not jurisdiction III similar
suits He commended also that a writ@o of
prohibition could only issue to a body
exercising judicial powers. and clearly
that the State Board of =CanvaSsers shatt
no such powers. It was neither court
nor was it proposing to act AS court,
ard therefore the writ did not lie. He
read from authorities to show that pro-
hibition was in effect a proceeding be-
tween courts alone. and he again retter--.
ated thet statement that the funcSo7s
Of the board We're political and not1tidi-
! cial Again the writ lies only from a.
superior to- an inferior court and were
the board judicial in its nature. twas
NOT inferior 10 the court. for@lt repre-
scented In this matter the sovereignty
OF great State.
Coming to the merits Of the questions
involved Mr.. Christian took up one after
another Of Captain Wisess points and
answered t',nm i, n allie manner
QUESTION OF PROCLAMATION.
He said on the question. of proclama-
ton that the decisions and authorities
established the right of conventions to-
ordain beyond all question. and he men
toned many instances from the Federal
Constitution down.
He reviewed the fight for a conven-
I ton in Virginia and contended ably that
the body could not be properly bound by
the legislative act, as 1t derived its
powers from the former Constitution,
which did not restrict it as to prociama-
ton.
| He said there was no case on record
where Constitution had been recognized
| BY ali the departments of government and
tccn upset in the court when there was
no revolution, but peaceful admnistra-
ton of the new organic law. When the
poiitica! departments Of State have
recognized and are proceeGng under a
Constitution, it is too late for the courts
I to take cognizance,,' said Mr.. Christian,
and he quoted the Texas case as one in
point and that of Taylor VS. Beckham,
from Kentucky as another.
He claimed that the new Constitution
| operated as to all alike. and was not
/ therefore in violation OF the United Sta es.
Constitution. Judge Waddill asked if Mr..
Christian meant to say that he soldier
clause was intended to operate fairy
and the quick and positive answer was