New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-03-27
toaal t eoaEse under te existing Laws could have

s their basis OF 5tIo, the law OF lSl4. 10 decide upon
he contested seats of Messrs. a. T. G. Morgan, De-
'a and Lunlsden, we find this committee in the case
IF fLeggett and Harrison VI. Iabarre and Whann, and
4irnoard vs Mackey, recommending the Legislature
% send for persons and papers, and to collect ey
lence before commissioner, before they decide upon
he claims Of the contestants thereby acknowledging
principle which they denied to some Of the contes-
teesa principle which we hold the only constita-
tiona and legal course the Legislature could adopt
and one which the minority committee invariably adj
vocated Here we witness a second and not less pal
pable inconsistency. % 85 8s84@
In the case Of Hatch confestng the seat of Strick
land, the majority committee recommended to send
back to the people election when all the evidence
adduced ls IN favor Of the consestee
ne obtained large majority over the contestant, be-
catse the Sheriff Of the Parish in which the election
was hed neglected to send an election box one of
the precincts, and the votes were received in tenn
porary receptacle until a box could be made. Not
Wtfstanding the evidence il conclusive that all the
precautions we're the votes were secme fn
hereceptacse usedthat no frauds were
account Of nformality election
was ordered to be sent back TO the people Here we
would observe that the result was as anticipate
the contestee was reelected by larger majority than
before. These facts are only referred to to show
another inconsistency in the Of Leggett and Har-
rson Vs LahaI1e and Whann, notwithstanding the
evidence shows that one Of the Democratic canddatss
participated in the counting Of the votes. majority
refused to send the election back to the people The
minority Of the Legislature was willing nepery case
Of contested election to submit the decision to the
ie.-
by the majority. When these inconsistencies were
pointed out by the minority they were cooy informed
that the Central Committee of the Democratic party
had decided in New Orleans upon the course to be
pursued. Citizens of louisiana are you American
freemen? WilInot this declaration be received with
a burst of indignation throughout the State A We
read in ancient history that the little sonof Themisto
cles ruled Greece-that is he ruled his mother-his
mother rled Thenistoeles, Themstocles Athens, and
Athens Greece. Here we have parallel case the.
Grand Central Committee rules the Democratic par
ty and the Democratic party the State Of Louisiana,
ergo the Central Committee governs the State. Thus
we are under rule iron as that Of the Autocracy
Of Russia.
L. We now approach that extraordinary proceed
ing which probably above all other measures Of the
dominant party during the present session, was the
most fragrant violation of law and justice and most
dangerous in its tendency We refer to the removal
of the Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans by the resou
tion Of both Houses Of the General Assembly This
proceeding consider unprecedented in the polit
cal history of the country, nor has it, opinion,
parallel in any well organized Government of mod
| ern times.
In vain did members of the American party protest
against this measure we argued that it was viola
ton of the spirit and meaning of the Constitution
that in the teeth of the law. unjust in itself and
calculated to work out a most pernlelous influence
upon the future legislation of the State when the
madness of party spirit should seize upon the minds
of those who may hereafter have the control Of the
Legislature, and similar proceedings may be instituted
against some officer obnoxious to that party
~WGfp0nted the TecQrQ Eel anu
tested election case, and contende that the election
Of the latter had been declared legal BY the jury
empanneed to try the suit. and as the act of 1855
allowed neither new trial nor appeal the question
finally settled by the verdict and udg rendered
uponthe pleadings and proofs submitted by tile par
ties to that controversy that it was incompetent for
| the Legislature to revise that Judgment, because
neither the law nor the constitution has anywhere
4 empowered that department to take cOgnizance OF
4 suits determined by the Judicial Tribunals of the
State that no matter what might have been the
Irregularities frauds attending the election, the
Court and Jury under the act of 1855 were the only
powers who had authority to pass upon those frauds
irregularities, and when, after due consideration,
they had come to the conclusion that Hufty was
elected there end to the matter SO far as the
| legality Of his election was concerned, forever.
Ifths position be not correct then rea ina most
strange and dangerous state of confusion, civil and
political. If the ruling party have properly inter
preted their authority in this matter then there is no
! other check upon the legislative department than
1 what may be found within the limits of its own ar
bitrary will which will, whenever it may be directed
by an unscrupuous party, will be bounded alone by
/ the wants and exigencies of that party. Is ~
Having we think, clearly shown that the Legisla-
ture possesses power to take into consideration the
i legality of the election Of Hufty, We shall next in
quire into its authority to remove him for causes an
tecedent to his eection-and this raises the question:
whether it assume jurisdiction over Huty under
the provisions of Article 81 of the Constitution before
his election and before he became an officer of this
government. The article just referred to says, sail
Supreme and Inferior Courts shall be removable by
address of majority of both Houses
1t should here be noticed that Hufty not an Of
icer who had failed to discharge his duties, or had
committed acts Of mafeasance as minister of the
law, but this nquisitorial proceeding was instituted
against him as man or citizen who had participa
ted in the riots and frauds alleged in the preamble tt
have taken place in the city Of New Orleans on th
day of the last November election.
1t seems to us too clear for argument that the Leg
isature, acting as judicial tribunal under the pro
visions of said article of the Constitution, was no
seized of jurisdiction until Mr. Hufty became an ol
fcer the State The Constitution says that certain
officers may be removed by the address of both House
of the Legislature, provision plain in its meaning
that would suppose that a school boy could no
misnterpretit; yet we the sapient leaders of th
Democratic party assert with the most agitous bold
ness that by the terms of that article they can reacl
beyond the date of Sheriff $ commission, and stlk
i down their victim now, for what they accuse him
having done whilst he was as yet but private cltl
II zen of the State. H4A
We have thus far treated this matter upon genera
principles of law and JUSTICE though there was NJ
special statute directing the Legislature how to pro
ceed when conductinga prosecution against an office
of the State, either by impeachment or address
from which we have endeavored to expose the tota
want of respect, either for the or the other ex
l. hibted by the dominant party in the instance refer
e red to. But what will the intelligent and virtuou
portion of our fellowcitizens think. when we tel
is them that this inqusition against Sheriff Hufty wa
begun, carried on, and determined in every particu
to direct the Legislature how to proceed in all
l. where an officer of the State shall be prosecuted eithe
l. by impeachment or address. We allude to the Ac
N Of 1856 page 370 No. 3O4. The first section Of sal
NJ Act reads as follows :" That whenever any perso
L. shall wish to accuse public officer before the Leg
j. ature he shall address the House of Representative
is a memorial containing brief exposition of the act
of such public officer which supposed to be col
i; trary to law ; the memorial shall be sworn to an
III signed by him who presents it, and shall contain
H. list of the individuals who can give information re
tive to the facts set FORTH with notice of the seyer
ID charges which each individual included in the list ca
III substantate by his testimony The second sectio
le provides that the memorial shall be referred oa
d. mttee which shall cause the officer accused to
is cited to appear before them at day to be fixed
h the committee, which day may be either during tt
OF session. any subsequent session. that the wi
to nesses both for the prosecution and defence shall all
be summoned to appear at the day fixed for the tria
ct The third section reads thus That at the appon
he ed time the committee shall proceed to swear the vi
n nesses both for and against the accused whose tes
he mony shall be taken down in writing they shall the
y make their report to the House of Representative
lis and shall declare in the conclusion whether they
ie of the opinion that the charges are well founded
in which case the House ITSELF after having obtained
III, necessary information, shall decide whether it be e
sct pedient to proceed by means of impeachment or