New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-05-24
,rFfE CoNagsspRD ELECTIoNs..

Under the foregoing head the Commercial Bulletin,
Of yesterday, contains very sound and telling
article, the greater portion Of which we take much
pleasure in Reproducing. The first paragraph reads
asfollows:
We have hand TO ascertain the the public
Raa s
vsSaous questions between party contestants for clerical
2 n nd n Ii n A.
ss has been pursued ii relation t. hese oss hodin
issues and simply consider
msrey that shsss issues WHICH have
III esan ss
S IN
galty aa learn hat What Y dc
ns these m G5a Ish sao
beTeyiyed been aaM f ao,b; tn
ii the merits Of this sase only ande T. II one af
feeling the public Interest and for the
Whatever the expense may be- n wall nave % pe
borne by the tax payers just as surrey "
perversion Of JUSTICE has inflicted great
ssprivate rights But, it is q doubtful qnestion
whether one class Of our citizens possess any
ut all private personal Or general. 10 be native OF
the SOIL and to take pride in American principles
and character, IS disquaica if not positive
disability before at least one Of orr Judicial tribunals
and to have been an American candidate for public
Office is absolutely criminal 8 s58s II
The law peremptory orders the Judge Of the First
District Court to try contested election cases sum
marily and without delay Nearly seven months
have elapsed since the November election, and hardly
case per month has been tried! This may be q.
compliance with the requisites Of the law, but it is
not, according to our humble understanding.
The Bulletin remarks, forcibly rand truly: We will
merely say that these issues, which have consumed
the time of the Court and the country for three
or four months, at thessacrice of and prioate
rights, might, but for the cursed bane party have
been settled in so many ksthe whole Of them
There is no doubt Of the correctness Of the Bulle
tins proposition. If it had said or seven MONTHS
instead of f three or four months, it would have
been the mark, far the question Of time
is concerned Proceedings were commenced in all
Of these election cases, more than six months ago.
and this law-abidng Court has disposed Of, SUM
marily'' and without delay about one case per
month Such dispatch Of business was never
known before any other tribunal.
Further along the Bulletin says:
The ls m, acts Of sss p ID
touched force Under these circumstances the public
think strange that the Judge, who knows that the
aeaa aba
s a IL will op
speedy termination of contested election cases.
We think itmore than likely the motion for new
trial will prevail unless writ Of prohibition from the
Supreme Court should be brought to bear. We have
no argument to sustain our impression further than
that which necessarily flows, from the well known
fact that the plaintiff is Democrat and the defend
ant an American that counsel for the plain
tiff haze asked for ne,o trial! We always judge
Of the future by the past; and looking to the past,
we are led to believe that the motion will he enter
tained the cause thrown over to next fall law, deci-
sions and justice, to the contrary notwithstanding.
We shall be happy to learn that we are wrong; and,
if SO shall make adequate explanation.
Everybody knows we cannot be in the confidence
of the Court as we are among the ostracised enter
tanning rather decided political notions Of our own,
as we have a clear and indefeasble right to do--
Butwewill venture upona prediction, TO show what
good s. gnesser we are. During the present week
the contested election cases for the cerkshps Of the
Fifth and Sixth District Courts have been postponed
Indefinitely. Theconnsel for the defence American
asked the court to fix the trials as early posi-
BILE, the 10th of next month, for instance. The
counsel for the plaintiff Democrat ggested that
the 10th Of next month would be d very proper day.
We prophesy that the 10th will be the day selected
by the Court and that the cases will not be deter
mined before the July adjournments take place.