Year: 1872

IOunuation oil tse government 70 the present day
would lead rreelstibly 10 the conclusion that such
s the true construction OF the act OF COngress but
In the last of these cases. that OF Graham, 1t was
upon which the rights Of the parties depended.


THE PETITIONBR ALLR0ED,


ss ne does here tnas the object Of sSe petition was
ton on the part Of the Court below TO the preiu-
dice Of the petitioner. Secondly, ss to the msnda.
mus. 1t never was pretended that this Court might
interrupt the proceedings OF others by means OF
mandamus. Decisions are uniform TO the con-
but It cannot arrest their action nor direct them
what TO do 1t cannot substitute Its judgment for


y nss no i 20 snas
Court Of Kings Bench. Mr. Ps,llips himself in his his
stated the law a. 1t sthat this Court has no such
general supervisory jurisdiction as belongs to the
ever. except what 1t has received from express
acts OF Congress- II the present case involved an
appeal then 1t Ia true that prohibition, mandamus
cretion or this Court. as decided in Bronson VS..
Railroad q Wall). But here 10 no appeal, for the
ing in the circuit Court and has not
reached any final decision. Parties have their
when the ssrSS
their cause may be-. f6ey cannot come here And
ask THIS Court 70 transact all the business Of the
Circuit Court, in conformity with the explicit pro.
vision OF the thirteenth section OF the act OF May
81, 1870, enabling any person who 10 deprived OF


by reason or the rejection Of voters on account or
ter color or race TO sue for redress In the Circuit
declines 70 argue that this act is unconstitutional
but II ne did argue 1t would be perfectly easy to
It's e q o. as h
asserts that the process y an act OF usurpa-
ton, bat fails 70 Justify It's assertion by
The counsel has said much OF usurpaton,
In this case. deny there was any such usurpa-
manner to correct such errer Whether any ap
peal lies under this act ls doubtful II it does not
does Ss COURT only revise The be-
sf T Hys Ss e ak q 5
argument can have any weight with the Court,
and all the talk Of the peril Of the
means exist to maintain the public peace
| against disturbing efforts on the part
AS to the argument OF hardship can avail nothing
here. For nearly three generations there was no
remedy here in capital cases, where men could be
hanged by errors or usurpatiOns OF the District
Courts. The condition Of such persons was much
more serious argument OF hardship to invoke the
interposition OF this Court but the Court steadily
resisted all such temptations, in the consciousness
that they had no power. They have no power here,
and and Of course they WIN not act Thank God we can
this Court 1t will act when 1t has power, but it
will not act when 1t can nnd no power SO to do in
the constitution or IN acts Of Congress.


SENATOR CARPENTERS VIEWS.


Hon. N. H Carpenter, Senator from Wisconsin,
Carpenter said he would only make a Jew sugges-
tions In support Of the elaborate argument which
had been made by his associate. Mr.. Gushing Mr..
Phillips had claimed that the Supreme Court Ol the
over the inferior Judiciary tribunals or the Union
tSe Of Great S Ts
clause of the second section Of the third


s that the appellate s OF tne
Court shall be exercised with such excep-
sress @ shall prescribe, and he Claimed that
the Court had no control whatever over subordi-
nate tribunals, and only appellate Jurisdiction in
regard to particular causes which had been
conferred by the several acts OF Congress- that by
the Judiciary act Of 1893 the appellate power OF the
Supreme Court IN regard to suits in equity in the
Circuit Court was confLed to the power to review
final DEGREES; that this Court had no authority to
entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order or
was proceeding within or without its Jurisdiction (;
and that the writ OF prohibition could only issue IN
the cases provided for by the statute-that is, to
Judges OF the District Court sitting in Admiralty,
and to other Courts, when necessary to exer-
else appellate jurisdiction vested In this Court,
by an appeal or writ Of error, based upon some
final Judgment or final decree OF the Circuit or
District Court :, the petition In TINS case shows
yet reached final decree, and may never reach
such decree. There is therefore to-day no appel
late power in this Court In regard to that cause,
and never will be, unless that cause shall reach
nnal decree in the Court below. Mr.. Phillips has
remarked that the construction here commended
Tor would make the statute Inconsistent in this
that it


AUTHORIZED WRIT OF PROHIBITION


In admiralty causes which had been disputed for
many years in England prior to the adoption Of
our constitution, and denies the right to issue the
writ in all those causes where 1t had already been
issued by the Kings Bench. understand the ex-
planatiOn OF this to be that while the decision OF
ordinary causes between man and man within our
Jurisdiction can very rarely affect the rights OF for
eign nations, single decree OF District Judge
sitting in admiralty might embroil us in war
with Great Britain or with any other commercial
Power. It is to be remarked that the statute does
not give this Court the right to issue the writ OF
prohibition Of Circuit Courts even in
Judges, the lowest in the list Of
seen that District Judge, sitting some remote
part OF the country, might embroil us in war be-
lore the cause, in the ordinary course OF proceed
ngs, could be reviewed by this Court. Therefore,
this Court was empowered to arrest such proceed
ings-by writ OF prohibition, and the express pro-
vision authorizing this writ in this single case
| Phillips claims that the Court below has usurped
authority in entertaining the suit there pending.
The contrary OF this clearly appears. The fifteenth
article Of amendment declares that no State shall
deprive citizen OF the United States OF the right
Condition SdTa on Of s o a
may, by appropriate legislation, enforce the pro-
visions OF This amendment. The right to vote
means more than the right to put q ballot In hat
or box. 1t means that the vote, when properly
cast shall be counted and returned and made EN-
cacious to secure the 0ffcc to the person having
the greatest number OF ballots. 1t Is not enough
that the voter is permitted to cast his vote while
SOHe SldJe OuCeI Is 10 ulSreRlrQ IL III
the canvass Of votes. This provision, like every
other in the constitution, was designed to secure
practical results, and to secure to the voter not
only the right to cast his ballot unmolesed, but TO
have the ballot, when cast, erectual for the pur-
pose OF determining


WHO SHALL HOLD THE OFFICE,


and 1t Is provided that Congress may by appro-
pirate legislation, secure this practical result. In
the execution Of this constitutional power Congress
has provided that no person shall be deprived OF
the office to which he would have been elected II
such voters had been permitted to vote, and that
the person who would thus have been elected may
maintain an appropriate action In q Circuit Court
to obtain the office. This statute is clearly within
the constitutional power OF Congress to enact 1t
is fair question for judicial examinaton-what
the appropriate action in such case may be,
whether the party who would have been elected
should wait until his opponent was installed in
Office, and then bring q quo tcarrdRtO to oust
him, or whether he may bring suit in equity
for an Injunction to restrain the declaration OF an
election in violation OF the votes cast and offered
to be cast. Whichever Of these remedies might be
adopted In particular case, II Is manifested IL
might be objected that the other way was more
"a dc