New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-09-07


not vote to maintain the duty sugar, nor can he
vote to clear out the Bayou Lafourche, and make
those votes square with the Democratic faith. dare
Mr.. Taylor, or any other member of the Democratic
party to come forth and prove to the people Of this
Congressional District, any consistency between the
Of the and the principles of the other
ANERIcUs.
THE NEW VS.. THE OLD ELECTION LAW.
1t has been argued, with considerable ingenuity
and plausibility, that, unless the injunction now
holding the Army Bill " in state of suspension by
process of law is withdrawn there can be no cleo
ton held in this parish in November next. This
strained and illogical conclusion have adverted to
in previous articles. and refuted it to the satisfaction
OF the intelligent masses of the community but, as
there appears to be some slight misunderstanding
regarding the matter, we have concluded to glance
briefly at few of the principal points involved in the
controversy, with view to dispel all doubts.
1t is maintained that the d" Army Pill repealed
all other laws relative to elections in New Orleans
and that consequently, there can be no lawful cleo
tions held except those held under it. According to
the express terms of the act it went in force mme
dstey after its approval by the Governor on the 10Th
under the old lawrst for six District Judges, and,
second for Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen, etc.,
and no objection has been made. Those who take
the ground that there can be election in Novem.
Der except under the new law should also take ground
against the legality Of the election of Judges and
municipal officers. If their argument is valid, oul
persons, property and character are, to great ex
tent in the custody Of Judges not entitled to seats or
the bench, and the vast and complicated concerns Of
this mighty metropolis are managed by men not law
fully entitled to their management. And be it re-
membered also that Gov. Wickliffe, knowing full well
the terms of the new law, commissioned all the off
GERS elected under the old law This is proof that
the Governor does not approve the policy recon-
mended by the noelection advocates.
Without touching upon point almost universally
conceded that, when law is suspended by the opeE
alton of law by Injunction in the present instance
it remains suspended, dead letter. until passed upon
by the tribunal of last resort that the laws which had
previously prevailed necessarily come into operation
we come down to the question whether, by any pro
cess of legislation, the people can be Invested OF the
most important right guaranteed them by the para
mount law of the land-the supreme law-the Law
from which legislatures, Governors, Judges and al
other officers derive their authority to speak ac
officially. We contend that they cannot and if thu
last legislature had repealed all laws relative to cleo
tons, and failed to enact any others in their stead
the nalenable right of the people to the elective fran
chse would not have been impaired, and they coult
have met in their respective precincts and ward
throughout the State, appointed their own commits
soners from among themselves, proceeded to cleo
their Senators, Representatives and other parisl
Il Hoo, al n,1
valid and binding No act of omission or commits
sion on the part of the creatures of the constitution
for every officer in the State, from the highest to tn
lowest is, directly indirectly but creature of tina
instrumental deprive the people of the right {
suffrage. To argue otherwise would be preposterou
Carry it out and the inferior becomes the superior
! the offspring usurps control over the parent.
But, does the new law repeal all other laws?
certainly does where they conflict with its peculia
| provisions but not otherwise. This is a point, W
suggest, worthy some consideration. Again, thos
who contend that an election cannot be held mex
November seem to forget that the old and new law
are substantially the same in the most essential pa
ticular-that of securing to the people the enoymer
of the elective franchise The old law says that til
people of this parish shall vote for certain officers
the first Monday of November next, pursuant to til
behests of the constitution. The new says the sam
thing and there is great difference save in til
mode of execution-of mere forthwith the excel
that vast majority of our people believe the new la
to be unconstitutional. Whether unconstitutional {
not however, it makes provision for the people
vote and that is the point we are now discussing.
| the substance is secured, the mere forms by whlc
that end is attained are not material. Our Suprenl
Court has decided that point clearly and unequv'
cally.
The man who would sacrifice the right of sufrag
on account of laws which differ in mere forms-bot
of which were enacted to carry out that very right
entertans peculiar ideas of Republicanism. Where
the vital difference whether the people vote under til
old system, in twenty three baotboxes, or whethe
they VOTE under the system in forty ballo
boxes, under the management of the Superintendent
and Central Board of Commissioners So fair an
honest vote is cast the great object of the constt,
ton is achieved and that great object cannot be ST
aside or abrogaed, no matter if ten thousand Arm
bills had been passed by the Legislature, and tie
thousand injunctions laid upon them. The laten
inherent power is in the people, the makers of col
situations, and cannot be wrested from them excel
at the hazard of revolution.
We oppose the Army bl' because we regard
as an iniqutous, tyrannical, and unconstitution
piece of special legislation striking directly at IL
city of our residence, and trenchiug upon the maj
hood of every voter residing within its jurisdiction
For people that would submit to it, there is no ter
too opprobrous-no serfdom too slavish.
These sticklers for unimportant FORMS who av
that no election can be held in November unless IL
forms of the Army bill" are observed, overles
themselves in their zeal to make converts. As befo
stated the substance of both laws varies but little
any. Now, if forms are 80 essential, and the ne
law is enforced in November and an election is he
under it, and the Supreme Court should afterwar
declare it wholly unconstitutional would the elect,
thus held be invalid? Assuredly, if the argument
the stickers is valid. Why? Because the forms
the old law were not complied with The voice
the people would be lost because of trivial nonct
formity to forms This simple illustration shows t
absurdity of the main argument advanced on the
posite side.
Again. Should the injunction be withdrawn, 81
pose the officers appointed under the Army bill
should neglect making the necessary advertseme
in French and English, in two papers, ten days pr
to the election. Would such an omission of an uni
portant FORM mere incident to law, dsfranch
the voting population of this great parish?
doubtedly, if the propositions ofthe form stickers
founded in solvency.
So it is clear, if the policy of the stickers preva
t that any omission Of form, no matter how petty,
any neglect of an official, no matter how triy
would deprive the people of their most sacred RICH
Such controyersalists value the shadow and confer