New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-09-16

VERY pIsINGENUoUs.

.# ~
A very unfair and disingenuous effort is being made
throughout the State to produce the impression upon
the public mind that the American party OF New VI
| leans waited until after the adjournment OF the
] Supreme Court before suing out the lnJunction
against the Army BILL, in order that there might
he no final determination of the constitutonaty or
unconstitutionality Of that law until after the Novem
Der election Nothing could be more unfair than THIS
line of argument nothing more repugnant TO exist
ing facts, as we shall proceed TO show We ask Inc
peope to pay attention to our statements in order
that they may not be deceived. We shall cite MOTH
ing but undenied and undeniabe truths az
The Act Relative to Elections in the Parish Of Or
leans was approved by the Governor on the 18th of
March last, on which day the Legislature adjourned,
having served out its constitutional term of sixty
DAYS, The last clause declared that the law should
90 in force and take effect from and after its passage
If the positions taken by some few form stickers be
well founded, it was law, binding, valid and COM
pulsory, the very moment the Governors official sig
nature was attached to the enrolled bill. But, such
was not, evidently, the opinion of the Governor or
Secretary of Statefor the law was not published in
the State gazette until many weeks after the adjourn
ment Of the Legislature and the Chief Executive OF
the Commonwealth has commissioned judges and
other officers in this parish elected under the law OF
1885, notwithstanding the arbitrary last section OF
the" Army BILL 1
On the 9th day of April last, eighteen days after the
passage of the election law, six judges for the parish
of Orleans were elected under the law OF 1866 Five
of them were promptly commissioned by the Gov
ernor, and the other received his commission as soon
as the condensation of his election was decided Inc
new law had not been promulgated by the Secretary
of State-no attempt was made to enforce it by the
Central Board of Commissioners, or by the Supern-
tendent of Elections nor were any proceedings
taken under COLOR or by virtue of its authority Yet
it was then more than it is now an operative law,
for then it was not enjoned by legal process as it is
now.
We happen to know that the American party
wished it enforced SO that an injunction might be
brought to BEAR with the view of carrying it before
the tribunal of last resort at the earliest practicable
moment. Yet those charged with its enforcement ne
elected to make any movement. Is the American
party justly amenable to the charge of fault because
of the nonaction of the principal opposed to it !!
Unquestionably not.
Mayor Waterman on the 26th of May, in formal
note addressed to Attorney. General Noise er-otcio
President of the Central Board Of Commissioners,
peremptorily refused to participate in the debera.
tons Of said Board, OF which the law constituted him
a member. In such cases as this there is a legal
remedy, and public officer may be compelled to dis
charge his public duties by writ of mandamus One
of the main that caused the Mayor to refuse
to attend the meeting Of the Board founded in the
hope that writ Of mandamus would be sued out
against him compelling his attendance, SO that case
might be made out which would bring the question Of
the constitutonalty of the law summary before the
Supreme Court, aohich then in session, on its
merits He did all he could do to bring about final
arbitrament of vexed and important subject. Yet
no steps were taken by the Central Board or by the
Superintendent although the public mind was deeply
excited, and the press of the metropolis was appeal
ing to them to initiate measures having in view
proper settlement The Crescent had several articles
on the subject and various modes were suggested, all
emnently fair and practicable.
But the Central Board of Commissioners was deaf,
dumb or obstinate and nothing was accomplished or
sought to be accomplished. Does this look as though
the Americans of this parish wished to delay action
until after the adjournment of the Supreme Court
No.. Does it look as though they were unwilling that
the consttutionaty of the law should be determined
No. And does it not look as though the members Of
the Central Board of Commissioners had made up
their minds to evade decision by the Supreme Court
as long as possible. Internationally. Which party
is in fault then? Not the American party assuredly
On the LIST Of June--some serentytour days afte,
the passage and approval Of the Election law, which
by its express terms, was to take effect from ant
after its passage-an election for Aldermen and As
sistant Aldermen of this city took place. Certainly
serentytour days was time enough for the Contra
Board of Commissioners to prepare for action. YET