New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-02-28
Y MORNING, FEBRUARY 20, 1856.
?Jteh Otlears Daily Grfstent
II TWGpTM5@yE
OF THE MINORITY oMMITTEE E
On the Contested Elections.

HDHG1D-TH1$yE AZ
OF THE MINORITY CoMMITTEEE
On the Contested Elections.
To the Honorable the President and Members Of The
Senate Of the State Of Louisiana, in Session.
The undersigned members of the committee, to
whom was referred the petition of Messrs. Hyams,
Messrs Burke, Michel and Burtie as Senator'S elect
from the Parish Of Orleans, not having time granted
to them by the majority of the committee to examine
their report 50 as to enable them to respond to the
same, do now respectfully protest agastt the adoption
Of the resolution vacating the seats Of the sitting /
members, and awarding the same to the contestants,
for the following reasons, viz:
1st That hearing was not given to the contestees,
andno opportunity afforded them to introduce evi-
dcncc before the committee, notwithstanding they de-
sired to do So
I'd. That the testimony offered by the contestants,
and reported to the Senate and ordered to be publish
ed was illegally taken-the law of 1914 being ex-
pressy repealed by the act Of 1856 and under no cir
cumstances should have had the effect Of legal pro
ceedng to preclude the contestecs from introducing
rebutting testimony.
Sd. That2on the hypothesis the facts were as stated
in the volume Of testimony the decision of the Senate
awarding the seats to the contestants was, in the
opinion Of the undersigned, llnwalTanted. That ac
cordng to the law in force prior to the act Of 1856,
the Senate had authority only to confirm the seats Of
the sitting members, vacate them, and not to take
the election from the people; now, nasmuch as the
pursuance of the former law, it follows that the jud
en to be rendered thereon should also have been in
accordance with the same law.
1t is reasonable to suppose that the Legislature of
1866 in comforting the authority. not only to vacate
the seats Of sitting members but to award the same
to contestants, intended different rule, viz That the
witnesses should be examined by the committee, so
that their manner of testfying, and other crcum-
stances, would be manifested; in word that there
should be greater degree of solemnity the trial
for the right to elect Senators sacred right under
the Constitution, that belongs to the people; and
when sitting members, who have, prima tacie, the
right are osted expected that the election will
be retured to the people, unless the case be garg
to be satisfactory to the public mind which cannot
be pretended in the present cases for certain the
sitting members were not even heard.
As to the power Of the Senate to vacate the seats
of the, contestees there be doubt, and their
dutyto do so in view Of the reported facts as little
doubt-but the power to award the seats to the con
testants, is seriously opposed Regarding it as mo-
mentous question: these protesants do not hesitate to
declarethat the Senate has not the constitutional,
legal right, the eridence submitted to render such
Judgment. The act Of 1855 introduced a pro-
vision comforting authority, and this is tie first time
the Senate has been called upon to give inerpreta-
tion to that act. The undersigned do not pretend it
is against the provisions of the constitution, because
there may be that would justify such judgment;
for instance, where there error in counting the
uotes poled, which is not pretendedin these cases
The constitution confers the right the qualified
electors to elect their Senatorste law provides that
sided over by judges ofthe election or commissioners
who are sworn officers, receiving their authority from
the constituted tribunals of the country and that
boxes shall be prepared in which the ballots shall be
drawn out and counted by the Commissioners, and
returns made.
Now. if in the performance of this duty, an error
is committed in the count and satisfactorily proved,
it would not infringe the elective franchise of the citi
zen, do violence to the Constitution, to award the
seat to the candidate receiving the highest votebut
the moment you proceed to take into the count any
| ln,,ariT iTaI AFy fIa lDE- RI
cast votes which were never deposited i'll the box.
For instance if election was held in Baton Rouge,
between A and B. and the Commissioners prevented
two hundred friends and partisans of B deposting
their ballots and the seat of contested on that
ground the Senators sitting as judges OF the law and
evidence could not award the seat to B. for they are
not the judges of election. They are judges of the
case presented, and it, in their opinion, qualified cleo
tors have been denied the right OF voting, it would
be their duty to order further election. They have
not the constitutional power to do that which the
Commissioners ought to have done-they are not sit
ting appellate court to receive votes, and render
final Judgment.
1t Should he borne in mind that the Commissioners
are sworn officers, and are presumed to have done
their duty.
Let it not be thought that these objections are tech
nical for nothing is technical that annuls a law and
takes from free people their elective franchise. Sup
pose the two hundred votes be counted, then you
count those votes which the electors did not cast and
you virtually substituting youo fiat in the place of
the eectors-u fiat unauthorized by the Constitution
which has established but rule, and that is I'M
utabe-at least to our minds as strict construction
sts Again. it is not technical for suppose two hun
dred other voters were present, friends of A. and
learning the decision Of the Commissioners, excluding
those who had offered to vote for B. satisfied
and went home without offering their votes, would
it not be their privilege on reelection to cast their
votes
If different rule be Standardization, in the
course Of time, there would be such innovations as
would render the appointment of Commissioners ull-
necessary; the Senate would award the election to
any one who could prove the greater number OF
friends.
The question is momentous, even in a technical
point of view for if you desire to preserve the Con-
stitution, the substance OF law you must preserve
the to,m-an innovation Oh the one, will surely lead
to an innovation on the other.
1t is not only necessary for all judicial tribunals to
decide rightly and conscentiousy but to do SO
in such a manner, and under such circumstances OF
form and with care and prudence, (siVlng to each
party full fair and impartial hearing as will satisfy
the public that the Judgment is right. Any course
short of this is calculated to poison the public mind
to produce dscord and discomfort, and be produc
tive of more mischief than the breaking Of ballot
boxes for what is the effect of lawless act of few
unknown individuals compared with an injustice, OF
Il supposed injustice to a community, who consider
that their rights electors have been taken away from
thenl-the may be easily repailed-the other sps
the very foundation OF Government. The one Is the
result of momentary excitement of q reckless mob
that may for the time be instrumental in defeating
the people in making choice of officers which car
be leneQled by again repairing 10 tlc Dlllpl-DoA
The other is without a remedy, it is the judgment O
the highest tribunal from whose decision there is III
appeal which conflicts with popular rights and neye
5 should be rendered in cases of doubt
The precedent is very dangerous one, for let il
be known that awess individuals can deprive honest
r men of the elective franchise and you are giving
. them encouragement to repeat such ontrages. The
idea that vilanous mob should have it in their power
to confer jurisdiction the Senate that defeats tht
right of the qualified electors to choose their owr
representatives, is proposition revolving to the pub
, lie scnsbllity.
These protestants regret that outrages have beer
perperated by lawless mob, and would go as far a.
any punish the guilty, and to provide by law means
to prevent recurrence of such scenes and are prout
to say that in the testimony adduced erpa1te as i
is there is not word to show that the Outrage wa
perpctrated by either of the parties. They rejoice
, that both the Democratic and American party con
:, denim in unnleaslrcd terms such acts, and hope i
may have an influence admontory to all political dem
agogues, and be the of breaking up the PERM
cious practice of betting on elections.
. The purity of the ballot-hoN should be preserved
it should be purged from all corruptons and guarded
: against all subStitutions.
The undersigned dissent from the conclusions Of th
majority of the committee. They are of the opinion
= that the ballots not counted could only be consdere
as evidence to vacate the seats of the sitting members
J. for reasons already given.
:. In reference to the ballots found in the bo