The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1856-04-09


petfated on account of this nformaity the election
was ordered 10 be sent back to the people Here we
would observe that theresult was as we anticpated
the conestee was reelected by larger majority than
before These facts only referred to show another
Inconsistency in the case Of Leggett vs. Labarre and
Whann, notwithstanding the evidence shows that one
OF the Democratic candidates participated in the count
ing Of M votes the majority refused to send the cleo
ton back to the people The minority Of the legisa
trre was willing IN every of contested election to
submit she decision to the people This proposition
was Invariably repulsed by the majority When these
Inconsistencies 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,
you American freemen? VIII not this declaration be
received with burst of indignation throughout the
Slater We read in ancient historytha the little
of Thanistocles ruled Greece-that is he ruled his
Tnother-his mother ruled Themistocles. Themsto-
eles Athens, and Athens Greece Here we have pa
lalle eases the grand central committee rules the de
Iaocratc party, and the democratic party the State Of
Louisiana, ergo, the central committee governs the
State Thus under rule iron that of the
| autocr4cy Of Russia
We now approach that most extraordinary proceed
ing, which probably above all other measures of the
doninAnt party during the present session., the
most fagrnnt violation of law and justice and most
IN it's tendency We refer to the removal Of
the sheriff of the parish Of Orleans BY the resolution
Of both houses of the general assembly. This pro-
eeedig we consider unprecedented in the political
history ct the country has it in opinion pa
rallel IN any well organised government Of modern
times,
In vain did members of the American party protest
against this measure; argued that it was viola
ton Of the spirit and meaning Of the constitution;
that It was in the teeth of the law unjust itself and
cacL lated TO work out most perncious influence up
the future legislation of the State when the mad
ness of party spirit should seize upon the minds of
those who may hereafter have the control of the egs
lature, and similar proceedings may be instituted
against some officer obnoxious to that party.
W pointed to the record in the Bell and Hufty con-
tested election case and contended that the election
of the latter had been declared legal BY the jury EN-
panneled TO try the suit, and as the act of 1855 allow
cd nelther new trial nor appeal question final
" settled by the verdict and Judgment rendered upon
the peadugs and proofs submitted by the parties to
that controversy that it was incompetent for legs
latuce To revise that Judgment, because neither the
law nor the constitution has anywhere empowered that
department to take cognzance of suits determined by
the Judicial tribunals of the State that no matter
what might have been the irregularities frauds at
tenGsng the election, the court and jury under the act
OF 1888 were the only powers who had authority to
pass upon those frauds irregularities and when af
ter due consideration they had to the conclusion
that Hufty was elected, there end to the mat
Ter ~ far ss the Legality Of his election concerned
forever.
lt this position be not correct then we are all in
moss strange and dangerous state of confusion civil
and political # the ruling party have properly in
terlseted their authority in this matter there is
no ther check upon the legislative department than
WHIST may be found within the limits Of its own arbi
trary VIII, which will, whenever it may be directed
~ an unscrupuous party, will be bounded alone by
the wants and exigencies of that party.
isaylng we think, clearly shown that the Iegisla
possesses power to take into consideration the
Legality CT the election Of Hufy shall not next in
into its authority to him for causes ante
cedent to his electon-and this raises the question
whather it assume jurisdiction over Hutty under
pf
his election, and before he became an officer of this
The article just referred to says call
civil officers except the judges Of the
presne and inferior courts shall be removable by an
address OF majority of both houses
II should be here noticed that Huty was not an Of
eer who had failed to discharge his duties, or had
committed acts of maleasance as minister of the
aa but this nquisitoria proceeding was Instituted
Against him as man or citizen who had participated
N the rots and frauds alleged in the preamble to have
place In the city of New Orleans the day of
the last November election.
vt seems to too clear for argument that the legis
atslre, acting judicial tribunal under the prov
of said article of the constitution was not seized
Of jurisdiction until Mr. Hufty became an officer of the
State The constitution says that certain officers may
be removed BY the address of both houses of the legs
lature, provision plain in its meaning that one
1yfuld suppose that school boy could not misnter
st it, yet we see the sapient leaders of the demo-
critic party assert with the most agtious boldness
bt BY the terms of that article they can reach be-
yand the date Of sheritf's commission, and strike
d9wn their victim now, for what they accuse him of
1avng done whilst he was yet but private citi-
zen of the State.
We have thus far treated this matter upon general
nIneples OF law and justice, though there was no
ecial statute directing the legislature how to pro-
esd when conducting prosecution against an officer
4 the State, either by an impeachment or address +
rom which we have endeavored to expose the total
Eant OF respect either for the the other exhibit
Il by the dominant party in the instance referred to-
3ut what Will the intelligent and vrtuous portion of
r citizens think when we tell them that this
nquls.tion against sheriff Hufty was begun, carried
y, and determined in every particular in positive vi
atlon OF the statute made expressly to direct the
eglsature how to proceed in all where an officer
! the State shall be prosecuted either by mpeaeh-
GEN. OF address allude to the act of 1855, page
~ No. 304 The first section Of said act reads Us
slows: "That whenever any person shall wish to
icuse public officer before the legislature, he shall
ddress the house of representatives memorial con-
lining brief exposition of the acts of such public
Hcer which are supposedto be contrary to law the
aennorlal shall be sworn to and signed by him who
resens IT. and shall contain list of the individuals
rho can give information relative to the facts set
rth with notice of the several charges which each
adlvldua included IN the list substantiate BY his
estmony The second section provides that the
leIncrial shall be referred to committee, which :
hall cause the officer accused to be cited to appear be-
're them at day to be fixed BY the committee which
ay may be either during the session, or any T.
SESSION. tntlb Gne Witnesses Doth
and defence shall also be summoned to
cay at the day fixed for the trial The third section
ads thus: "That at the appointed time the commit
e shall proceed to the witnesses both for and
salust the aeeused. whose testimony shall be taken
own IN writing they she'll then make their report to
e honse ri and shall declare Ia the
whether they are Of the opinion that the
largeS are well founded Easch case the house it.
III after having obtained Necessary itfograafion
~ decide Whether IL ~ es 1ssIIf to ssroeaed by
ears RI Impeachment or bS adisess:s t
In case theeoInntee shelf raake report ii favor
tic accused, the adoption Of the report bg the Il
'uae shall be sufficient and Che accused sha Dc dis
aiged5 end cAa never after be ispHght hsese The h
gsiature for the acts which he has been alYe-
charged. For the information of those who may Al
# hYe taken the pains to inform themselves in rela
N td the manner In which sheriff Hufty was re- Ii
owed, We will here state that, memorial was pre-
nted to the house of representatives complaining Of
iaga acts of said officer, citation was issued il
him requiring him to appear and answer charges tu
ougat against him, no witnesses were summoned II
her for the State for said officer all Of which for e
les prescribed by the first and second sections
sai6 act there any the least notice taken t
The dominant party Of he provisions Of the third IL
tioIa which we have cited above in full.
Comment conduct so grossly Illegal oppressive
despotic would weaken the impression which the tie