New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-02-28
ATT'ELrTNG OOcUNTENT.s

wa have alrpady acknowledged the receipt of
con, If 4be ID Protest Of the Minority Committee on
tbe contested Elections Of three Senators from the
pa,;sh of Orleans. It will be found in another place
| III thisf1norning S paper. sa
WE n1pnose referring to one ortwo Of tile more i'm
portant points in the Protest" and only ortwo,
as the document itself will command large amount
Of public attention, showing as it does, eunamness
ofthe means by which Messls. Burke, Michel and
Burthe were elected from seats in the Senate, to which
they had been duly elected by majorityof the SOW
eregn people of this parish. We doubt not our readers
WILL after perusing the Protest. agree with Us in
opinion that more henious case of party tyranny IS
notreeorded in the political annals Of the country,
At the outset tits stated that the minority Of TIE
committee were not allowed time to examine the re.
portof the majority ofthe committee, so as to enable
them to respond to the same" They then proceed to
state the grounds on which their proests founded
First that no hearing was allowed the contestees J
that Notwithstanding their desire, they were liol per
mitted to introduce evidence before the committee
that tile testimony reported by the contestants 70 Tue
l8Senate was Illegally taken, the law OF 1914 having
been repealed by the law of 1886, and under no en-
cumstances could have precuded the contestees from
introducing testimony in their own behalf; that sup
posn tile facts were stated in the volume OF test
the decision Of the Senate awarding the seats
to the contestants was nnwarranted that under the
law in force prior to the act of 1856 the Senate had
Authority only to confirm the seats of the sitting
members or "racdte them, and not totake the cfec-
ton from the people," and that as the evidence taken
and proceedings had, were under the former law, the
decision should have been in accordance Herewith.
Such would have been fair and legitimate course,
if the law of 1855 was to be nulitied. But this
would not have suited the political majority. A con-
irrnation would have ruined the hopes of the con-
testants and reference to the people, it was feared,
would turn out equally damaging. Soft was deter
pay attention to about onc-ha!f of repealed law
Under such a rule as this the contestees had less
chance than rudderess OF disrnasted ship in ll,lr.
srieane.
Il The assumption of the majority to count rotes III
favor Of the contestants, which cast, is
logically argued and illustrated, and the destructive
tendencies of such a precedent strongly set forth
Adopt the rule that the Senate and House can annu
amy election they choose by assuming that certain
number Of voters did not vote, and the theory pop
ua elections is not worth the paper upon which it il
written. The assumptions and substtutions of The
Senate and House could easily overcome the largcs
majority. At least the two bodies now in session
would experience little difficulty in doing so, Judging
the future by the past.
But We find we are too cramped for space to pursue
this subject to the length we would desire. And it i
necessary the protest speaks for ITSELF and tt
Lit we again refer the public.
| $50