Richmond planet., 1902-12-06
QUOTED MANY AUTHORITIES.

Mr.. Wise here took up the legal as
pect OF the case, and read many extracts
from decisions on constitutional quest
lous and writers of constitutional law.
such as Cooley, VonHolts, and others.
Mr.. Wise declared that he could not re-
Ter this question TO the Court of Appeals
because IL was n political Office and il
seemed TO his mind that this was a good
reason for seeking the right from the
United States courts.
The Chief Justice then remarked that
the supreme Court of the United States
refused TO take jurisdiction where it
was alleged that the'criminal jurisdic-
tlon of Texas had been obliterated, the
conrt saving that therefore 1t was not
proper for the United States 10 inter
ttre. And the Chief Justice also referred
10 case from Kentucky, in dispute
between two Governors as TO whom was
elected.
In reply to a question from the Chief
Justice as TO whether this was a suit
against the State. Mr.. Wise declared
that ir"wasnot, and tried to show that
officers are not the State.
The court remarked that the writ of
prohibition lies from one court TO anoth-
er. and that where il had been held that
the writ of prohibition did lie against
S-h OAAASbA 10 NOulu OG dkdlUSL the man
who undertook TO usurp authority of a
board oa an office, and that the writ of
prohibition would have TO run against a
board as a board, and the only Inference
TO be drawn is that I'm the courts mind
TINS writ sued out against executive of
hcers as board of officers of the State
was suit against the State, and the
court declared that the first thing TO be
considered was the jurisdiction of the
question.
WANTED MORE TINE.
This seemed to be the question ON
which the answers OF the defendants
hinged and the question which the
court felt must first be decided. nd Mr..
Wise begged that time be allowed for
arranging has authorities, declaring that
he was worn out
The court then, at $50 o'clock took a
recess for an hour
The court reassembled promptly at 7
O'Clock, and Mr.. Wise resumed the ar
gument where ne left off, with ne pro
mise that he would soon aome to the
question of jurisdiction, bat denied
that there was any express authority for
the convention TO ordain the Constitu-
ton, He referred TO the Constitution of
1869, Article AII., as having power To
control all future amendments. He re-
ferred TO many authorities, the Williams
case, and others, and declared the Bill
of Rights is mere mockery in the face
OF what follows. He relied entirely ON
the Revised Statutes, section 500. TO
bring his action'in chancery. He cited
the Blanton case in Virginia to so sho :,
that suit against the officer is not nee
esSarlly sui against the State, and
again insisted that the act Of Congress
readmitting Virginia to the Union was
that on which the jurisdiction of this
court rested.
ENGLISH LAW.
He then addressed himself to the writ
of prohibition, and referred to the Eng
hshslaw on this subject and to the Amer
lean and English Encyclopedia, apollo
giving for the use of this latter authori-
ty, but adding that it was the best book
for lazy lawyers, and "vve all stick our
noses in it. But the question seemed to
be not whether this writ can be issued.
but whether it can be issued by this
court. The Chief Justice here asked
him:
"How can you prohibit that which is
not a body?' and added that this is the
same board as was constituted under the
old law.
HE GREW ELOQUENT
Here Mr.. Wise grew eloquent on the