OCR Text |
Show Not a Parallel Oasa. The organ of the Chief Jujliee claimsthat the cases of Strickland and dmith, who pres.cn tod a certificate of appointment by tho Governor as Attorney At-torney General and Marshal, respectively, respect-ively, to Judge Emerson, and demanded de-manded recognition because of their commissions, made for them a prima facie case, similar to that upon which Delegate Cannon was admitted to bis place in Congress. The cases are by no means parallel. In the first instance tho documents presented were commissions issued by the Governor in defiance of statute. In the case of tho Delegate the certificate was by the officer duly authorized and required re-quired to certify that the person holding the certificate bad a majority of all votes cast. In the case decided at Provo, the Governor confessedly acted without authority ol statutes; in the case decided by Congress Con-gress he simply discharged a plain and unquestioned duty. But the cases of Milner and McAllister, Mc-Allister, the officers admitted and recognized by Judge Emerson, is simply sim-ply a repetition of Mr. Cannon's case. McAllister and Milner presented tbeii formal certificates ot election by the I only power competent to elect the Legislature. In their cases, rather than in the cases of the unauthorized appointees of the Governor, was tho prima jacie evidence of official standing, stand-ing, and they wero accordingly permitted per-mitted to act. |