The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-04-09
aaar,gs to the People Of GOnisiana.

aooress to the 1)fople q lOn's'ana.
F., f. IN the opinion Of the minority Of those
ha.o heen called to participate in the ieg1siatve
wy s the State the constitution has been abused
seuvl bv the majority and precedents dangerous
w robts Of the people, and contrary to the sgr!.
y AMERICAN government, have been estapshed, -
bcomes their duty faithful guardians q tne W.
!.at "a expose the unconstitutional illegal anu
inan and democratic action Of the dominant
rartv-Therefore
PTbe undersigned American members OF the generaI
...emblv being minority in both branches OF tnat
body believe that the action OF the majority stie
moeratic in eecng mempess Isass % and the the reno
aT ~ tbe sheriff of Orleans from office, was deS-
c exercise of party tyranny revolving e the Amer
I'm heart-and subsersiye of the fundamental princl-
nles OF q representative government
Thatour fellow-ctizens may understand the facts
IA see the dangers of the enormous wrongs that have
ssn done, we do respectfully inform them, that so
soon as the legislature assembled, resolution
Introduced BY the dominant party to remove from their
sssts Messrs. Burke, Michel and Burthe, the Ameri
ean senators, who were returned elected from Or
sans, and to award the same to Messrs. Hyans, st.
Paul and Wthers: that every honorable and legal eff
nt was made by the American senators to obtain for
The sitting members fair and impartial hearing, but
they prevented and in the absence of any testi
tedemocratic majority not only vacated but awarded
their seats to the contestants and in such discourte
os haste as not even allow the minority oppor
tunty TO make counter report. 8
3y this oct sixteen senators iess than majority OF
the whole substituted their viii in the place of the
balotbox for it is an undisputed fact that upon the
most favorable and exaggerated count OF the ballots
that had been deposited in the broken boxes for SEN
stors the number insufficient to elect each Of the
contestants They, TO accomplish their purpose had
IF ho11
count votes that had never been deposited refusing
the contestees opportunity Of doing the thing
establishing thereby oneside precedent, dangerous
to popular rights and violative of the constitution
which recognises the ballot-box alone as the great
palladium of American liberty, and the only channel
through which Unpopular voice can be heard.
The right the people Of Orleans had to elect their
senator's has been taken from them by sixteen of the
dominant party-a Legislative usurpation most dam
grous to the public safety and "most revolving to
the public sensibillty'
We wish it understood that the American senators
only desired to refer the election back to the people
they unwilling that the yoiceof the people should
be hushed sted either by the lawless acts Of in
dviduals who would break ballot-boxes Or by the
dominant party who were bold enough to substitute
their sixteen voices in the plaeeof the whole people
Of Orleans. The American party condemn, In ,ln-
measured terms, the breaking Of ballot boxes and all
similar outages elective franchise and never hes
ted to declare the seats vacant and to submit to the
people to repair to the ballot box and again to
exercise their sacred right of chosing their own sen
tors
The first prominently Illegal and unconstitutional
act OF the dominant party In the house of
il the rejection Of Al T. Morgan representative elect
from the ninth representative district Of the city Of
New Orleans, to give place to Charles Seuzeneau
Soon after this act Sin hot haste followed the expul
sion OF Lnmsden and Deya to make place for Messrs
Gordon and DeBlanc.
Ex.parte testimony was alone appealed to- in each
case for the purpose of justfyng these proceedngs-
We call it parte testimony because It was onlv on
one side and taken without the authority of anv
sting law. The testimony in these cases was taken
in conformity with the act of 1914 which is the only
net in our statute books that points preserbes
he mode to be pursued in taking testimony. But we
maintain that the law Of 1914 is absolutely repealed
oy that Of 1855, in the 54th section Of said act ex
pressed IN the following words: THAT all laws con
ay to the provisions of this act and all laws on the
ame subject matter, are repealed" Now the only
question to be determined is whether or not this re-
'eaing cause reaches the act Of 1874 ifit does not
mbrace the act of 1914, then the remark Of Taley-
and with reference to the object of language is fairly
Illustrated II the design Of language is to conceal
he thought as the above remarkable man said, then
c Intention OF the law makers has been fully
hshed But the majority report in the Of Seuze-
eau vs. Morgan says that it evident that this law
lsl4 merely prescribes the mode Of proceeding and
ne manner Of taking testimony to be used in con
'sted election before the legislature.
The authors OF this report surely could not have
sad with attention the act Of 1874 (See title of the
ct and sections /, 2, 8 and I0) Do not these posi-
ons relate to something else than the mere mode Of
roceedngs and the manner of taking testimony to tie
sed IN contested election before the legslature?
they not treat Of the subject matter as the act
is44S-is not all Of it repealed BY the 54th section
the latter act? The UNDERSIGNED do NOT for q ma H
ent entertain the opinion that the act of 1855 is per-
Ct or thatit even embraces what it should embrace,
Ut we hold that it is not within the power Of either
anch Of the general assembly, as it suits its nme
late convenience or purpose to supply deficiency IN
xlshng laws, by atitudinous construction, in part
IN whole. But the majority report Furthermore /
VS. "the constitution, it is perceived draws the de-
deratum between the power to decide election Of
member and the manner of determining contested "a
ectlons. The power to decide is vested exclusively
the house. but the manner in which the contest IS
be conducted may be prescribed by law This is I
ganng sophlstry. 1t is an utter perverson of the
tn article OF the constitution which prescribes that
ach house OF the general assembly shall Judge of
qualification, election and return of its members;
y contested election shall be determined in such
amer as shall be directed by law" It will be
lleeted that the constitution was ordained IN
we ask, could its trainers have had in view fhe
OF 1ol4f mark the wording of the latter clause of
above article; "but contested election shall be
termined IN such manner as shall be directed by
not ~ such manner as has been direetedby law 4
But the act of 1855 says: THAT in all contested
ctIons for members of the general assernhy esach
use shall have the power to determine VIII Me
rites is entitled to Che seat and award It
we Ike 70 know i the power to determine is not Il
power TO decide 1t the house has the right 70 Iii
ge between contestant and contestee has 1t not the
ne TO order the procurement of the testimony to en-
= lt TO decide fairly between the parties? The ma
lty report declared that the provision in the act Of
%, just quoted, ls bnt useless reteation of the
n article OF the constitution. Taking the constne
winch the majority report places upon the last I,