New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-02-26
DEBATES nv THE SENATE,
SPEECH OF HON. }. w. WALKER,

OF ST. MARY, .n 4. 5$3 +
On the dddress to Sheriff Eufty delicered on
the 20tt5tnstGnt.
Mr. WALEER said that he was deeyfy Impressed with
the Importance Of the subject before the Senate and
Of his own inability to do it justice. We find in Lou
isana said he state Of things of character soaex
traorLinary as to have caused the most profound SEN
sstion upon the minds of our citizens Of all classes,
Scenes Of violence have occurred IN the metropolis Of
our State Of such dangerous tendency as TO threaten
if not arrested, the overthrow OF CUE entire social
system. II
It was fortunate circumstance that both of the
great political parties in the State unite by their pub
lie expressions in condemnation Of these scenes OF
violence. And the American party, with which it
was his happiness to be connected, was not less aecl-
ded than the Democratic party, in it's condemnation
Of these outrages He claimed for that party as great
pressing that measure before the Senate. 10 that
measure he was opposed from his strong conviction
that it was in violation Of the principles of right,
of law and the Constitution. But IN making opposl
tion to it, and to the extraordinary manner in which
it was pressed through the Senate, hewouh not have
it though for moment, that he would not be as
ready as any TO contribute to the adoption of any
measure to bring to condign punishment the perpe
traitors of these outrages against law order and the
rights Of citizens. %,t .gse = t-.-4ss&. s5 l%a
He opposed the voting Of the address for the re-
moval Of the Sheriff of the Parish Of Orleans be-
cause in addition to its violation of the Constitution
it would establish bad precedent IN the Legislation
Of the State 10 one could deny indeed It had had
Gus that there the idea was elaborated if not CON
ceved and there the plan concocted for carrying it
out. All know, who have any knowledge Of the his
tory of governments how dangerous precedents are;
particularly in republican governments when such
precedents emanate from the secret conelayes Of
dominant party, and which attack the yerystructure
Of the government, and the most cherished rights OF
the citizen But said he it had been intimated
that upon the party with which he was connected |
rested the responsibility for the causes which had
brought Oh this extraordinary action of the General
Assembly. He had to say to the Senators opposite,
that far as his own constituents were concerned,
that the american party of St. Mary embraced at
least two-thrds Of the integrity and virtue Of the
parish: and, speaking for them, he could not give
the slightest coutenance to the scenes of riot and
disorder enacted in the eity of New Orleans as
their Representative on that floor, could he give any
T countenance to the novel and dangerous measure
then about to be put upon its final reading III the
| Senate. =,
| He would, at the outset Of his argument, lay down
| two general propositions .....g-
First, That no officer can be removed by the Cen
eral Assembly for that had existence anterior
to his being placed in office, hut only for causes which
occurred subsequent to that time, such maladnin-
! istratOn, or great moral turpitude. .. ...-s-5
| Secondly, That wheneverthe General Assembly un-
dertakes to remove an officer by an address the party
should have due notice of the proceeding: should be
furnished with copy Of the charges brought against
him; should have an opportunity of adducing evi-
dence to disproye those charges and should be allow
ed the privilege Of being heard either in person by
counsel in his defence.
4 There is, said he, no clause in our Constitution
which gives the power to the Legislature of annulling
Judgment of the Courts in any case, or under any
circumstances whatever. The decision of Court pos
sessing competent jurisdiction in a case. properly
brought within its jurisdiction cannot be revised
set aside by the Legislative department Of our gov
ernment.
Would not the assumption of such power in civil
suits criminal prosecutions lead to revolution and
civil war! Can You asslgn he asked, any good rea-
son why verdict and Judgment rendered in a con
tested election case, should not have the force,
and be held as nvolable and as free from legislative
interference the verdict of jury in criminal case,
| Or a Judgment of the Supreme Court?
All parts of the Constitution must be construed
with reference to each other. Article 81 could never
! have been intended to grant power suppressve of
the powers given the Judicial DEPARTMENT. nor could
it have been intended to vest the Legislature with
powers totally incompatible with the vested rights of
every free inhabtant of the State.
The verdict in the Bell and Hufty case vested in
the latter right to the Sheralty of the Parish of
Orleans; a right which is as perfectly vested in him
by the verdict of the jury as would have been his
right under judgment Of the Supreme Court, CON
demnng br, Bell to pay him ten thousand dollars in
an action of debt.
| Mr.. Walker, proceeding with his argument, said
that though the act of SO might be bad law-and
some of its provisions were certainly not such as he
could approve ofstill it was law. 1t passed by
the Legislature in conformity to the constitution:
and, unless the Supreme Court should declare it an
infraction of the Constitution, it deserved much
respect as the Constitution itself This gentleman
of the legal profession would dispute. It followed
that if Huty was declared Sheriff under that act he
Sheriff under the law and the Constitution. So
clear NttS tllS III his OWL lllu tlal lie nau WIFI
astonishment, from men who were in the habit of
discussing legal and constitutional questions, and
presumed to have some knowledge of the science
government that though the decision of that court
made in accordance with law and the COnstitu-
: ton. this Legislative Assemby-this grand Inquest
OF the State-had the right and the power to super
wise and set aside that decision! monstrous doc
trne, said he, and dangerous in the extreme.
Mr.. W. said it was a fundamental rule, applicable
alike to the State and Federal governments, that no
one department of government could exercise super
,ofa
department are clearly marked QUIT Executive,
Legislative and Judciary-and are totally distinct
But it had been asserted that floor. that the Leg
t islature as the immediate organ of the people,
was empowered to exercise extraordinary jaris:
, dicton over the officers of the State. This was
E denied. He conended that the Legislature no more
represents the { of the Re9p; than any
functions either the Judiciary or Executives that
it cannot interfere with the powers Of either of hem
,, nor it disturb the rights of the citizen in any
other way than as directed by law But new theory
e of government was maintained by the members of
the dominant party that floor, who announce the
startling doctrine with as much assurance as if it
t. proceeded from Pendeton Randolph, Patrick Henry
Il Alexander Hamilton or Chief Justice Marshall him
self! Suddenly have they sprung upon the country
as if by some magic power the idea Of grand super
visory legislative tribunal that set aside at will
II the vercts Of uries and the decisions OF courts.
k The true rule of Interpretation, said Mr. W., was
e laid down in the able speech of Mr. Bayar1, before
the United States Senate in the celebrated case OF
r for high scrmes and msdeneanors so to interpret
% an instrument to give the fullest effect to aits
II parts. If there be apparent contradiction, must
attempt to reconcile; and if there be absolute repug
nancy we must reject that part which be rejected
If with the least violence to the general Intention" In
other words, we must construe the Constitution with
u reference not only to all its parts and its spirit but
we should constre it with reference to the system of
laws under which We iye otherwise many Of its pro-
visions would be implacticable and nugatory. For
lie instance that article which gives to every free
W accused of crime, right to be tried by jury of the
" vicinage. 1t is silent to the mode of conducting
p the trial the rules of evidence and form of indic
ment Now, suppose, said Mr.. W., we were about
for the first time, to make Constitution, and had moi
adopted the common law rules of criminal practice
andit was provided that all crimes should be tried by
r jury, what would you think of Judge who woult
he rule that the jury should take up the and decide
it without giving the party accused notice of the
r. cusation, examining witnesses, nor allow him th
40 right to defend himself-but, upon evidence takel
W from the housetops' find him guilty of felony upo
:, which he condemns him to be hanged? In othe
"i words, address him out Of his lite?
This construction in the supposed case, would c
ed course be subversve of every principle of freedom
and destructive of the very foundation of every go,
,s ernent based upon republican constitution whe
guarantees the right Of all its citizens to be protecte