Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1856-03-29

Ill Vic lNu1 A'olo1 Va SA~
country, nor has it, in our opinion, parallel
in any we'll organized Government OF modern
times.
In vain did members Of the American par
ty protest against this measure; we argued
that it was a violation Of the spirit and mean
ing of the Constitution, that it was in the
teeth of the law, unj ust in itself and calcula-
ted to work out most perniclous 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 when similar
proceedings may be instituted against some
officer obnoxious to that party.
We pointed to the record in the Bell and
Hufty contested election case, and contended
that the election Of the latter had been de-
clared legal by the jury empanelled to try the
suit; and as the act OF 1850 allowed neither
new trial nor appeal. the question was hnaily
settled by the verdict and judgment rendered
upon the pleadings, and proofs submitted by
the parties to that controversy, that 1t was IN
competent for the Legislature to reverse that
jud gmf mt, because neither the law nor the
Constitution has anywhere empowered that
Department to take cognlzance OF suits de-
termncd by the judicial tribunals OF the
State that no matter what might have been
the irregularities or frauds attending the elec-
ton, the court and jury under the act of 1855
were the only powers who had authority to
pass upon those frauds and irregularities: and
when, after due consideration. they had come
to the conclusion that Hufty was elected.
there was an end of the matter so far as the
legality of his election was concerned forever.
ii this position be not correct, then We
are all in a most strange and dangerous state
of confusion, civil and political If the rul-
ing party have properly interpreted theH au-
thority in this matter, then there is no other
check upon the legislative department than
what may be found within the limits OF Its
own arbitrary will, which. whenever 1t
may be directed bv an Inscriptions party.
will be bounded alone by the wants and exl-
gencies of that party.
Having as we think, clearly shown THAI
! the Legislature possesses no power to take
into consideration the legality OF she electlon
of Hutty, We shall next inquire into ITS au-
thoritv to remove him for causes antecedeht
to his election-and this raises the question
whether it can assume jurisdiction over 7'li-
| ty under then provisions OF article .! OF the
| Constitution before his election, and before
| he became an officer Of this government
| The article lust referred to says, all civil
! officers except the Governor and Judges OF
| the S,apreme and Interior Courts shall be re-
| movable by an address of majority OF both
Houses
| 1t should be here noticed that Hutty was
not as an officer who had failed to discharge
! his duties. or had committed acts OF maiieas-
ance as minister OF the law, but TINS In
ousi,oria proceeding was instituted against
him as man or citizen who had participated
! le oil n r..
bic to have taken place in the city OF Ne"
Orleans on the day OF the last November
| election. J.,
It seems to us too clear for argument that
the Legislature acting as judicial tribunal
under the provisions of said article Of the
Constitution was not seized of jurisdiction
until Mr.. Huity became an officer OF the
State. The Constitution says that certain
officers NAV be removed by the address OF
both Houses of the Legislature, provision
so plain in its meaning that one would sup
pose that schoolboy could not mls'nterpret
it. vet we see the sapient leaders OF the
Democratic party assert with the most ma
eitious boldness that, by the terms OF that
article they can reach beyond the date OF
a Sheriff" S commission and strike down tnesI
victim row for what they accuse HIM o.
having done whilst he was as yet but prl-
vate citizen of the State.
We have thus far treated this matter upon
general principles Of law and justice as
though there was no special statute directing
the LEGISLATURE how to proceed. when con-
ducting prosecution against an othcer OF tue
State. either BY an impeachment or address.
from which we have endeavored to expose
the total want of respect, either tor the one
or the other, exhibited by the dominant parry
! in the instance referred to. But what VII
the intelligent and virtnous portion OF our iel'
how citizens think when we tell them thai
this inQuistion against Sheriff hufty was
be.un carried on, and determined IN every
particular, in positive violation OF statute
made expressly to direct the Legis ature no"
To proceed in all cases where an ofhcer 9
the State shall be prosecuted either by IN
,pac hment or address we ailude to the Ac
Iof 1855, page 800 No. 304. The first section
of said Act reads as follows, That when
ever any person shall wish to accuse pub
lie officer before the Legislature, he shall ad
dress the House of Representatives memo
rial containing brief exposition OF the act
of such public officer which are supposed t.
be contrary to law the memorial shall b.
sworn to and signed by him who presents
and shall contain a list of the individual
who can give information relative tc the TACT
set forth, with notice Of the several char
pes which each individual included in tn
list can substantiate by his testimony" Ih'
second section provides, that, the nemor'a
shall be referred to committee which shal
cause the officer accused to be cited to appea
before them at day to be fixed by the com
. mittee, which day may be either during tn
same session or any subsequent session, tina
, the witnesses both for the prosecution AM
defence shall also be summoned to apPear. .
, the day fixed for the trial. The third sect.o
reads titus: That at the appointed time tn
> committee shall proceed to swear the wit
nesses both for and against the accusec
, whose testimony shall be taken down !
writing. they Shall then make their report t