Page:State v. Johnson.pdf/3

26 Ark.]  1870.]   It may be urged that the opinion urged by Judges P, E and C in 1864, is not entitled to much weight, they being the Judges of the Supreme Court at a time when Arkansas was supposed to belong to the Confederate States.

To this it may be replied, that Judges P, E and C were construing the provisions of the Constitution of 1861, which is identical with that of 1836, construed by Judge S; that they were acting under the solemnity of an oath that hound their consciences and controlled their legal judgments, to the same extent, as was the conscience and judgment of Judge S bound. As lawyers, and men of legal ability, they have few equals and no superiors; and whether the opinion and decision in The State v. Samuel W. Williams, has the force of a judgment now, it is, at least, entitled to much respect and weight, emanating, as it does, from such a high source.

In the case of The State v. Williams, we find the fallowing language, on the subject of jurisdiction of this court in quo warranto: "We, therefore, declare it to be now the opinion of this court, that, in cases involving the civil rights of the State as sovereign, affecting vitally its character and the proper administration of the government, in which the public has a direct and immediate interest, and when the right to a public office, franchise, liberty or privilege is the subject matter of the controversy, this court is, by the Constitution, invested with the original jurisdiction, to be exercised by means of a writ of mandamus or quo warranto, according as the State may, by her attorney general, ask for one or the other, in order to cause the admission of the proper person to, or to oust the party illegally holding such public office, franchise, liberty or privilege, with power, not only to issue the writ, but to hear and determine the same, being pro hoc vice, both a court of first instance and in the last resort. But we will not extend the remedy beyond the limits prescribed by the old writ, nor permit private persons to interfere and file relations in this court."

Feeling that we are fully sustained in exercising jurisdiction