New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-03-27
ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA


Aye, aye.
ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE oF LOUISIANA.
Whenever in the opinion of the minority Of those
Who have been called to participate in the legislative
ction Of the State the Constitution has been abused
n violated by the majority and precedents dangerous
the rights of the People, and contrary to the spirit
If American Government, have been established, it
becomes their duty as faithful guardians of the public
interest, to expose the unconstitutional Illegal, anti
American and anti-D action of the dominant
,arty-Therefore
The undersigned American members Of the General
Assembly being minority in both branches of that
body, believe that the action of the majority, the
Democratic PartyD in ejecting members from their
seats and substituting others in their places, and the
removal of the Sheriff of Orleans from Office was
surpaton Of power, offensive to the Constitutions
despotic exercise OF party tyranny, revolving to the
American heart-and subversiye of the fundamental
principles of a representative government.
That our feowcitizens may understand the facts
and see the dangers OF the enormous wrongs that
have been DONE do respectfully inform Them that
so as the Legislature assembled, resoutonWas
by the dominant party to remove from
their seats, Messrs. Burke, Michel and Burthe, the
American Senators who we're returned as elected
from Orleans, and to award the same to Messrs.
Hyams St. Paul and Withers; that every honorable
obtain for the sitting members a fair and impartial
hearing, but they were prevented and contrary to
all rule to all precedent and in the absence of any
testimony taken contradicto'y with the contestees,
the Democratic majority not only vacated but awarded
their seats to the contestants, and in such dis
courteous haste as not even to allow the minority
an opportunity to make counter report.
By this act sixteen Senators (ess than majority
of the whole,) substituted their will in the place OF
the balot-boX; for it is undsputed fact that;
upon the most favorable and exaggerated count OF
the ballots that had been deposited in the broken
boxes, for Senators, the number was insufficient to
elect each of the contestants. They, to accomplish
their purpose had therefore, to go outside of the bal
lotbox, and take into count votes that had never
been deposited, refusing the contestees opportu
nifty of doing the same establishing thereby
onesde precedent, dangerous to popular rights and
yolative Of the Constitution, which recognizes the
ballot-box alone as the great palladium Of 41ae'can
libeTtg, and the only channel through Which sthe
popular voice can be heard.
The right the people Of Orleans had to elect their
Senators has been taken from them by sixteen Of the
dominant party-a Legislature asurpation most dam
gerous to the public safety, and g most revolving to
the public sensbility.'
we wish it understood that the American Senators
only desired to refer the election back to the people
they were unwilling that the voice of the people
should be hushed sted either by the lawless acts
of individuals who would break balot-boxes, Or by
the dominant party who were bold enough to substi-
tute their sixteen voices in the place Of the whole
people of Orleans. The American party con-
denim, in unnleasred terms, the breaking of ballot
boxes and all similar ontrages on elective franchise,
to submit to the same people to repair to the ballot
box and again to exercise their right chosng
their own Senators.
The first prominently illegal and unconstitutional
act of the dominant party the House of Represent
atives, is the rejection of A. T. C. Morgan, Repre-
sentative elect from the Ninth Representative District
of the city of New Orleans, to give place to Charles
Seuzenear. Soon after this ACT, " in hot haste fol-
lowed the expulsion of lunlsden and Deval to make
place for Messrs. Gordon and DeBlanc.
EE-pdTte testimony was alone appealed to, in each
case for the purpose Of ustifyng these proceedings
we call it eE-pa1te testimony, because it was only on
one side and taken without the authority of any ex-
listing law. The testimony in these cases was taken
in conformity with the act of 1914 which is the only
act in our statute books that points out and pre-
scrbes the mode to be pursued in taking testimony.
But we maintain that the law of 1914 is absolutely
repealed by that Of 1856 the 54th section of said
act expressed in the following words: That all laws
contrary to the provisions of this act and all laws
! the same subject matter, are repealed" Now the
only question to be determined is whether not this
repeating clause reaches the act Of 1914; if it does
not embrace the act of 1884, then the remark OF
Taeyrand with reference to the object of language
is fairly illustrated. If the design Of language is to
conceal the thought" as the above remarkable man
said then the intention of the law makers has beer
fully accomplished But the maiority-report in the
case of SeuZeneau Morgan says that it is evident
that this law QSl4) merely prescribes the mode o
proceeding and the manner of taking testimony tt
be used in contested election before the Legisla
ture.
The authors of this report surely could not have
read with attention the act of lSl4 (See title of th
act and Sections, /. 2. 2. g. and 109 Do not thes
positions relate to something else than the mert
mode Of proceedings and the manner of taking testi
mony to be used in contested election before TIL
Legislature? Do they not treat of the subject mat
ter as the act 1855? isno by the SIT
section of the latter act The undersigned do not fo
moment entertain the opinion that the act Of 1856
is perfect or that it even embraces what it shoul
embrace, but hold that it is not within the powe
of either branch of the General Assembly, as it suit
its immediate convenience or purpose, to supply de
fciency in existing laws, by latitudinous constru'
ton, in part or in whole But the majority repol
Furthermore says "the Constitution, it is perceived
draws the desideratum between the power to deed
an election of member and the manner OF deter
mining contested elections. The power to decide
} vested exclusively in the House, but the manner i
J which the contest is to be conducted may be pr
scrbed by law. This is garing sophistry 1t is a
utter peryersion of the Goth Article of the Consttl
ton which prescribes that "each House of the Gel
eral Assembly shall Judge of the qualification, electo
and return of its members; but contested eectlo
shall be determined in such manner as shall be d
rected BY law It will berecollected that the Const
tuition was ordained in 1852, and we ask, could i
trainers have had in view the act of lSl42 mark IL
wording of the latter clause of the above article
sbut contested election shall be determined in sue
manner as shall be directed by law, not in such ma
ner as has been directed by law.
But the act of 1855 says: that in all contcstt
elections for members of the General Assembly eat
IS House shall have the power TO determine Which OF u
parti es is entitled to the seat and award it accor
ingly We like to know if the power to determine
not the power to decide. If the House has the rig
to Judge between contestant and contestee, has it
: the right to order the procurement Of testimony
enable it to decide fairly between the partiesf II
majority report declared that the provision in the q
of 1856, just quoted is but useless reteraton OF Il
y 10th Article of the Constitution. Taking the co
4 structon which the majority report places upon Il
Il Il last clause of this Article must dissent entire
ID from this opinion. The act of 1855 carries out tt
latter clause by directing the General Assembly toc
'n termne which of the parties is entitled to seat
the case of a contested election The majority &C
cludes its argument upon this branch Of the subie
i with this most egitimate deduction Ii. thereto
the grant of jurisdiction or the delegation OF pow
its be subject matter distinct and different from rules
At procedures it follows, matter of necessary con
uuence that the law of 1914 still exists in full Wig
in so far as it prescribes the mode Of taking te
- monyh hz- ri -
: Now we hold that the right to decide controye
Il involves the right to order the taking Of the testimc
upon which the decision Of the controversy is to
based. The House of Representatives,, in these c
tested election cases, had right to send for peTs
Co. Co. and papers, to order testimony to be taken IN
commission; and that VAS the only legal and eoast