New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-07-24
UNFAIR AND UNJUST.

UNFAIR AND UNJUST.
The suboined article appeared in the New Orleans
Courier of yesterday morning. We reproduce 1t IN
full for the purpose Of exposing its injustice its fala
ces and its evident intent to force impression upon
the public mind not warranted by thesfacts Of the
case. Says the Courier: H
X Since the threat was first uttered by the Know
Nothings to enoin the Superintendent, Commission
ers and Deputies under the new election law 1t mas
been well understood that their game was to wait until
the Supreme Court had adjourned, and then seize
upon the first pretext or prearlanged excuse Tor
bringing the matter before Of the District Courts
This scheme was commenced on Tuesday, De!ore
the Fifth District Court, Judge Eggeston, presldng
With an apparent desire to divest the proceeding OF
all appearance of fairness notice was served npoh
the Commissioners the Superintendent or any OF MS
appointees. No motion was made, as ought 70 DC
usual in such cases. for rule requiring Inc partes 10
appear and show cause WHY an injunction should not
Re granted against them. It is no wonder however,
that those who have no respect for law should have
none for the usages Of courts OF Justice 1t being
purely er pa,te affair it was not thought worth the
trouble to hear argument IN favor OF the law. be-
Sides the party upon whom the injunction was to OPP
crate were deemed too insignificant to be entitled to
appear by counsel within the hallowed precincts of
KnowN Nothing court, being merely the sovereign
people of the State of Louisiana!
n What course the Commissioners and the Superin-
tendent intend to pursue, we are not informed. 1t
appears to be impossible to obtain decision from
the Supreme Court before the next winter without
the consent and cooperation Of the petitioners in the
court below, and that cannot be expected FROM them
Row little they valued fairness appears but too
plainly in what they have done already.
VA When the decision of Judge Eggleston IS made
public we shall examine it and the bombastie petition
Of Mayor Waterman at length.
We challenge the Courier to name any man, Or set
Of men, at all authorized to speak for the American
party, who have made use of any threat in the
connection employed by it, Let make its first state
ment good, or hold its peace.
The Courier, starting out with fallacy, then pro-
ceeds to say: cit has been well understood that
their (the Americans) game was to wait until the
Supreme Court had adjourned, and then seize upon
the first pretext or pearranged excuse for bringing
the matter before one Of the District Courts is
From the foregoing, stranger to the facts of the
case would naturally infer that the American party
had sought to take an unfair advantage of the Dem
ocratic party, when nothing could be further from
the truth as recorded history amply demonstrates.
The blame if blame there be, rests exclusively upon
the shoulders Of the Democratic party, we shall
proceed to prove. b s=r
Is The act " Relative to. Elections was approved by
the Governor on the 10th of March last the day on
which the Legislature adjourned. The last section
provided that it should take effect from and after its
passage. On the 9Th Of April-eighteen days after
the passage Of the Election Law-an election for six
Judges for the parish Of Orleans took place. The
law was not enforced by the Central Board, nor
attempted to be enforced! Who was to blame? Ger
tany not the American party, the members of which
were wholly powerless. II st
On the 26th Of May, Mayor Waterman, in formal
note, addressed to Attorney Noise, erotcio
President Of the Central Board of Commissioners
peremptory refused to participate in the deliberations
of said Board, of which he was made member, in
very mockery it were, by the Legislature. Arti-
Gle 1874 of the Civil Code presents remedy for such
cases, and points out how a public officer may be
compelled to perform his public functions by writ
of mandamus. The Mayor hoped, we understand
that the writ of mandamus would issue, so that the
question Of the consttutonality of the law might be
suhiarily brought before the Supreme Court, 1cich
,gas then in session. its merits. Yet, steps were
taken by the Central Board Of Commissioners to test
the validity of the law, notwithstanding the public
mind was powerfully agitated and the press of the
city was appealing to them to initiate measures
to have the matter settled by our tribunal of last
sort The Crescent had several appealing articles or
the subject. H.. -r
But, the Central Board of Commissioners was deaf
dumb, or obstinate, and nothing was done. Does Thu
look as though the American party was Uaitins TO
the adjournment of the Supreme Court No. Doe
it look as though they were unwilling that the con
stitutonality of the law should be determined? Nc
And does it not look as though the Central Board
Commissioners were determined to shirk an arbitra
ton by the Supreme Court long as possible? Yes
undoubtedly. Which party, then, is in fault? TIL
Democratic party, unquestionably
On the first of June--some seuenty.four days afte
the approval of the Election Law, which, by its owl
specific TERMS was to take effect from and after it
passage-an election for Aldermen and Assistan
Aldermen of the city of New Orleans took place
Surely, seventy-four days was time enough for tn
Central Board of Commissioners to prepare for action
Yet they were not ready-did nothing-the Suprem
Court was in session--and the election was held unde
the old law.
So, all the facts-the ndisputable facts-show that
while the Supreme Court was in session, the leader
of the American party were anxious to bring tn
question to an ssue-that the press of the city wa
anxious for its determination, and that everythin
was done, that could be done, to induce the Contra
Board of Commissioners to take prompt and eficien
action-and that they would not move an inch in tn
premises, for reasons best known to themselves.
We have nothing to say regarding the fling at til
Judge Of the Fifth District Court, at the legal pre
ceedings therein taken. We imagine neither law no
usage was violated in hearing and granting the pet
ton Of Mayor Waterman. And the idea Of pronour
cling document from the pen Of one of the ables
and profoundest lawyers of the State carefully pr
pared, " bombastc,' is really good-entirey worth
the distinguished source whence it emanated.
in conclusion, again reiterate, that if the col
stutionality Of the Election Law has not been passe
upon by the Supreme Court, the members of the Cel
trail Board of Commissioners are the cause, and tt
sole cause. 4--
/ Bold and Patriotic Language.
The Jackson Mississippian is the central organ
tho loInocratc nartN of MissisSiI.,,i