Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1856-03-01

paper manufactured votes of a selt-declared
| intimidated host of men. not one-iourth OF
whom could probably be now found in New
| Orleans.
The fraud on the popular will of New Or
leans was perpctrated in the House OF Rep
iresentatiyes with still greater auaacity and
contempt for the Constitution and the law.
No evidence was taken in relation to the
| contested seats. The erparte testimony Ia
ken under a repealed law, in a case between
parties before the Senate, was by an easy
disregard of law and Of Justice, applied to the
! cases before the House. The right to be
| heard, to offer evidence, and to defend their
own claims and the rights OF the people, was
practically refused the sitting members. A
~pretence of violence in the city was made a
| justification of the denial Of all right and JUS
tice in the Legislature, and a tyrannical Dem
ocratic anti american MAJ ority disposed Of
seats as OF their " property. The Ameri-
can Representatives, elected and returned to
the House, were deprived OF their seats and
Democratic favorites substituted for them.
In keeping with the outrages on c~onstitu-
tional government and public liberty, above
! described. is the action Of the Legislature III
the removal OF Sheriff Hufty.
The election of Mr.. Hufty was contested
by MIR. Bell. The jury OF the country, to
whom the contested case was submitted, &C
cordIng to law, rendered a verdict III favor OF
Mr.. Hufty after an unsuccessful motion on
the part Of MIR. Bell for a new trial, 4 final
judgement was rendered by the Court, deciar-
Ing Mr.. HuftY the Sheriff elect, and entitled
10 hold the office for the term oil two years.
He was duly commissioned, and entered upon
the discharge OF his duties. The Legisla-
ture has removed hith.
IT., rr,,rj asE,,rrof for hic rap,ouaI rn
lates TO matters which were discussed and dis
! posed of in the action OF BeILvs. Huty. There
was no appeal in that case. Indeed, though
the counsel Of Hutty asserted the right OF ap-
peal, the counsel OF Bell confident OF the IA
vor of the Court, denied it and in that con-
fdence. we'll or Ill placed, obtained an order
from the Court refusing to allow the evidence
to be reduced to writing. IS Is usual In jury
trials, and took no exceptions or had no rea-
son to take any for an appeal. Bell and his
counsel felt secure of victory. The case was
fully argued. Hufty ~triunphed. The jury
was well composed. No honorable man has
dared to impeach It's integrity.
The address Of the Legislature refers 10
the conduct OF the Commissioners Of Flee
ton, and to the destruction Of the votes after
the closing OF the polls. These matters were
fully considered by the jury with the parties
to the suit before thenl, and after hearing EVIL
dence and argument.
Mr.. Hufty has not been called before eth
er House OF the Legislature. He has had no
opportunity ofdelending his rightto the office
and OF indicating his good name. Hisrightto
othce-a valuable Tlght-has been taken
away from him without a trial.
His removal under these circumstances, is
in the nature of an attender. 1t is unjust and
EIpnraraiaps.t a.si 10 t1,t ", rra ytai bv .,v-
purpose for which the power OF removal was
vested in the Legislature by the Constitu-
ton.
The trainers Of the Constitution never in
tended that the Legislature should set aside
practically the judgement nf a court in a case
properly submitted TO it-aIlI without sum-
moning a public officer before them-without
hearing evidence or argument in relation 10
any charges alleged against him. The pow |
er was intended for cases wherein a party
could not he, or at least had not been made |
amenab!e TO law. In providing a law for the
trial Of a contested e~lectiol, the Legislature
transfers that matter to the jurisdiction of a |
court. The evidence submitted to the Jury |
has not been placed before the LesislatuIe.-f
It was not taken down III consequence of the
opposition Of Mr.. Bells counsel, as has been. |
already stated. 1t was unjust, therefore
even If the Legislature had a right to act. to
assume that the evidence did not support the
verdict.
The address speaks Of 1900 votes as de- |
stroyed, and says that the whole population
Of New Orleans bears testimony 10 the fact. |
The American party while denouncing and
reprobatins all violence and illegal conduct |
deem it proper to say that the whole popu-
iatloD does not bear ally such testimony.-i
That party were content TO leave that mat |
ter to the decision OF the jury to whom it
properly belonged.
The action OF the Legislature is a bad pre-
cedent. In times of party excitement, it
wall lead to injustice and oppression.
The address was passed masifestly at the
instigation of the Governor, and it must be
regarded as a party act to punish an enemy
and award a friend.
The nomination of Mr.. Bell aggravates the
injustice of the removal. The citizens of
New Orleans have not forgotten that Mr..
Bell, many years ago while enjoying an office
of profit under the General Government, re-
tanned through party support, a seat in the
State Senate, for the purpose OF voting in vi
ofatIon of the Constitution for an L. S. Sem
ator.
The American party perceive in the pro
lect of a Registry Act, introduced into the |
Senate by Mr.. Hyams, of New Orleans, an
i~nsldious effort under p~retext of complying
with a requisition of the Constitution, to
leave a wide door open for frauds upon the
elective franchise. The project is a .oockery
intended to delude the contding and I'M
wary. /
The object OF the Registry Act is to pro-
tect the elective franchise against fraud by
requiring the registration in legal form Of the
names of all qualified voters. The propo.
sition of Mr.. Hyams is to admit to r%egistra-
ton the name OF any person who will swear
that he is a naturalized citizen and has lost
his naturalization papers, or that the papers