Evening journal., 1917-07-24
MR.. RICHARDS URGES
PROHIBITION WRIT
(contlnued from Page Onel

not be ng legally created. should not
be allowed to incur.
4 Attorney Richards argued the right
OF the court 10 issue the writ and
characterized the claim of the "drys1
that writ Of prohibition lies only
to restrain the functions of a court,
as an extreme view not sustained by
law Mr.. Richards argued that the
writ lies for bodies that are not courts
but exercise quasi judicial funct ons.
He traced the history OF the writ of
prohibition 10 SHOW that 1t was not in
ended to bo used only to stop the
functions of a court
In continuing his argument on the
right OF the court to issue the writ,
! Mi Richards outlined new function
| for me Superior Court in this Safe,
claiming thai the court has an in
i herent statutory and experimenting
/ control over all bodies, boards, courts
and cdnmittoes having a judicial or
quasi judicial function. and that this
court can mould any common law
4 writ to meet the eyigencies Of any
4 case growing ont of that superinend-
4 ing control He even wen. further
than this and contended that If such
common law writs cannor be so mould
/ ed then the cour. has power by rea-
son of is experimenting control to
create its own writs to meet any
condition,
Carrying his argument along these
| lines Attorney Richards con.ended
! that this experimenting control Of
the court extends to sheriffs, coroners.
/ public officers and TO boards which
arc assuming to act as public officials
as q board or department OF elections
| Mr. Burchenal replied briefly to the
claim OF Attorney Richards as to the
/ experimenting control of courts by
insisting that this control exists only
in the Supreme Court of the State and
hence the writ of prohibition does not
he from the Superior Court Mr.
| Burchenal also contended that the
writ Of prob bition has not been ex-
tended in its scope in this State but
stands as ii existed in Revolutionary
days, a writ that cannot be issued
except by the Supreme Court and
tnen only 10 stop judicial and not
the so-called quasi judicial functions
Of courts He argued that II the
court is to rule that the special de-
partment Of election has quasi judi
cial functions. then the court must
read into the law creating the de-
partment. something that is not there.
Likewise he contended that decisions
cited in favor OF prohibition writs
were In States where the constitu-
tion OF the States provided for the
! issuance OF such a writ or there had
! been distinct statutory enactment
! specifying the cases in which such
| wrifs OF prohibition can issue.
His conclusion was that where there
IS no direct and specific constitutional
or statutory provision for using th'
| writ in other than judicial functions
that such writ does not lie in qaus
judicial cases, as the special department
Of elections is considered by both side
70 be-
Mr.. Burchenal reused declared tina
there is no provision in the law permit
ting the Board of Elections to remov
election officials for cause as claimed b
counsel for the "wets"
With arguments ended on both sides o
the question Of the issuance Of writ
of prohibition as asked in two petitions
4 tho court announced its readiness (
| hear arguments on the main question
This is the second suit filed in which
the Wilmington Printing Company asks
for a writ Of mandamus directing the
Levy Court 10 show cause why il should
not pay bill of 1925 for printing
blanks for use under the law.
After some discussion of returns
and answers. the answer of the Levy
Court to the printing company's petit
tion was presented by Mr. Richards
-and Mr. Harman then started the ar
gument as to the unconstitutionality
of the law direct on the following
grounds:
First-On the ground that the act
legislates on three subjects while only
one is mentioned in the title and
therefore the act is void.
Second That no provision is made
/ for naming the wet" and dry" cam
paign committees which the law says
shall handle the election, hence the
act is imperative.
Third-That the petition to the Leg
islature for a special election in rural
New Castle county was withdrawn and
hence the law passed is void.
on the first point, Mr. Harman con.
tended that the provision for the spe
cial election, was one subject thai
creating a new and complete reg.stra.
tlon is another subject. and inall,
that the creation Of a new Depart
mont Of Elections is a third subject
but that the only subject mentioned
IN the title OF the law was. that for ;
! special election, nothing being sal,
about the creation Of a new registra
ton nor the creation Of a new De
partment Of Elections.
Attorney Harman argued that whel
a petition. signed by a majority Of til
legislators in any one district is pre
sented TO the Legislature asking 10
law to provide for resubmission o
the license question the Legis
lature Is bound 70 enact IN
] legislation, even If the majority 3
all members Of the body is aqains
J. such law. When the request Of ia
s rural New Castle legislators was pre
2 sented to the Legislature he argue
5 ii was the duty of the members {
the Legislature 10 comply with III
!. request.
Chief Justice Pennewill asked Ii
following question:
"Mr. Harman. do you contend ID;
when the Legislature passed the la
on the request of rural New Cast
county it was preeluded under its dii
cretionary power in the constitutio
J from extending the act to include I'll
city of Wilmington"
Mr. Harman replied: THAT Is on
Z contention. Your Honor The Legis
? lature. il there had been no petitio
: for a special election law. had dis