Year: 1870

IHE kfCHmOND MAYORALTY TROUBLES.
Arguments In the United States Supreme


Court by Counsel Of Ellyson and Chu-


hoon-Decision Reserved.


WASHINGTON, April 7. 1870.


After the adjournment Of the Supreme Court this
afternoon Chief Justice Chase gave nearing to the
counsel in the Richmond diniculty case. Associate
Justice Nelson occupied seat on the right OF the
Chief Justice. Judge Meredith, Of the counsel OF
Ellyson moved to dissolve the Injunction granted
by Judge Underwood against Elyson and his
associates In the municipal government Of
Richmond. Elyson. being the mayor, was the
only party guilty OF technical, not actual.
contempt and there was no reason why the
Chief Justice should not entertain motion to dis
solve the injunction on behalf OF the twenty-five
councilmen and the six Others. who, having made
resistance. not In even technical contempt.
II the Chief Justice held that Judge Underwood had
no jurisdiction in the case then the counsel claimed
the parties were entitled to relief AS to contempt.
however that question was to be tried before Judge
Underwood, at Alexandra, on Saturday


Ex-Governor Wells OF the counsel for Chahoon
stated the legal proceedings In the case and cited
the petition OF Chahoon TO Judge Underwood In SUBJ
stance that Eiyson was disturbing the public peace
by pretending to be Mayor Of Richmond and resist
ing his (Chahoon's) proper authority, and gave the
facts SO far as the charge OF contempt was con-
cerned.


Ex-Governor Wise, of the counsel for Chahoon,
said this case could come up only from the Circuit
Court at Richmond. twas not only invited, but
requested by the counsel on the other side. After
alludlng to what recently took place In Richmond
he said Ellys0n and friends had insisted on the ar
rest for constructive contempt In order that they
might resort to writ or habeas corpus; but nothing
was then said about such motion that just made.
The urst objection he had TO 1t was that asked the
Chief Justice to countenance contempt OF court;
second. its effect whatever It's intention, is un-
doubtedly to cvaae the necessity of writ of error:
third 10 attempted to evade the process OF the Judge
rendering the interlOeutory order. and whose au-
was no" ss ak i0 ha,
OF case which can be decided only by
the court. The counsel for the defendants
ask one judge to insult another. Constructivey this
was fraud upon the appellate remedy; 1rth,
Of the Circuit Courtgrantny that IL had erred-this
was not the way TO remedy The wrong, to correct
nco Of notice sd ,esa servsa 1as
upon him to appear IN Alexandria on Saturday next
before Judge Underwood to show cause why he
should not be imprisoned. Could the party DC
allowed to come INTO the presence OF THIS court
WISE then argued that the effect OF Is
sve until reversed by writ OF error appeal to
competent court. The question here was not wheeler
the decision according to law. The right to de-
termine the conduct OF courts OF the Union was
placed ln tue supreme judicial tribunal OF the
ton. IL, therefore, belonged exclusively to the
court offended TO Judge Of the contempt aad It's ex
tent. No other court could undertake IN o COLA
tera way TO question review or reInedy an ad|ud.
caGion Of court Of competent jurisdiction In case
OF contempt. A proceeding for contempt was
garded ns distinct ana Independents from that for a
were cited TO sustain these positions.


Alr. James Nelson, OF counsel for Eilyson, briefly
claim OF Chahoon to be Mayor OF Richmond he al.
leging that Elyson is not Mayor, and that cer.ain


the &C. OF the Central Assembly was repugnant
TO the constitution Of the State OF Virginia. The
question was SIMPLY whether Chahoon or EIlyson
aud his associates were in legal possession Of tue
municipal authority. The latter were appointed and
acted under the act OF the Legislature. There
upon Chahoon filed his bin in the Circuit Court OF
the United States and prayed the court TO
inhibit Elyson and his associates from acting. Bat
the bill was presented In vacation The Judge was
at his residence III Alexandria, and on the bill he
made an endorsement that on q certain day he
would hear the prayer OF the petitioner The Judge
returned to Richmond. when process was SIZED. I
The case was yet in that court, and the only ques-
ton was whether the Judge should grant the nunc.
tion prayed for. Ely son and hts associates were
fully recognized by the executive department OF te
State, ana the Governor had rcproyed Chahoon for
pretending to be the Mayor OF Richmond


Mr.. Nelson maintained that the Circuit Court had
no jurisdiction IN The matter anu therefore could
not take c0gnizance OF the case.


On The announcement OF the decision OF Judge
Underwood counsel Tor Eiyson prayed for an ap-
peal and offered to give satisfactory securty but
the prayer was Oyerruled. Counsel then announced,
on behalf OF Eilyson that the opposition was made
to she injunction solely for The purpose OF raising
question to effect rcvsai or the case Eiyson, lie
repeated, was not dhobedent TO the writ In con-
temptuous spirit but In order TO get the question
before this court. He did not think there was
any statute restricting the power OF superior
court to award or dissolve an Injunction as TO tae
boundary or judicial district and the order would
be supreme and permanent. AZ TO the right OF Ely.
son to O nearing In tho present prcdieament, that
rested with the court: It appealed to the discretion
or the Judge. He might grant or deny. While IL
was true Ellyson was technically In contempt II was
also true that his contempt was technical, made
with no purpose OF hostility 70 the court bat Ia the
kindest manner for the purpose OF enabling him To
secure revisal OF the order OF the court below.
Of SILVER. Tie defendant had, therefore com.
mified no injury on Cnahoon. Granting he had done
80. was there an iniexlble rule TO prevent dssolv


Judge Meredith said ON the point Of Jurisdiction
the Chief Justice was IN chambers. He looked upon
It as matter OF convenience. with o view Of hear
lnT the motions to dissolve the injunction. When
the Chief Justice came here to enter his Judgment
longed. Not till 1t was entered did II become the
Judgment Of the court. But this was not the seat
nor was Aiexandra the seat OF judge underwood
To hear the charge OF contempt. 1t was not Judg
ment until the order was sent to Richmond the seat
OF the court, ana there entered. Suppose Judge
Underwood on Saturday should commit Eiiyson for
Contempt there was no opportunity for showing tue
writ Of habeas corpus II the Court below had not
jhrisdictlons Why should they walt until Eyson Is
the motion to dissolve the Injunction be heard II
Elyson was going TO fall, the Court was bound to
consiuer Whetner the Judge VINO committed him had
jurisdiction Ia the case


Chief Justice Chase said 1t had been suggested
whether presiding Judge could dissolve an injunc-
ton granted by the other Judge OF the same court


Judge Meredith replied that the Chef Justice had
concurrent jurisdiction with Judge Underw ood and
held higher Judicial position than the latter. Sit
ting together, Judge Underwood would not have |
jurisdiction conclusive IN the premises.


Governor Wise replied, IL ne had recently been on
the bench IN Richmond he would nave committed |
not only EllysOn but his counsel He could not ex.
press his emotion at the time when EIyson admOn.
ished the Court that he would not obey its Judgment
Tne Court then admonished MIN that they would put
him In jail. The Judge said he hoped Elyson would |
take night TO reflect but after that there was riot
and bloodshed. The very next day Eiyson and hts |
associates dsobeyed the order at the risk OF making
people die In this case contempt has mad q ven
oaous sting, and that sting has becn death.


Inc counsel on the opposite side said there was |
no statute preventing the dissolving OF the uunc-
ton.


- Mr. Wise remarked there was something stronger |
here was law of decOrum, deilcacy and propriety
higher than any legislation. 1t was necessary to
preserve the dignity ana efficiency OF the judicial
nrnV nf lhn Is l