New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1857-09-15
THE ENJorSED ELEcr1oN LAW.

cate OF the 18th instant observes
The Crescent announces positively tbat Ine inJanc,
ton against the election law will not be Withdrawn
Nv the Mayor Of New Orleans We take this TO pc an
Official and final end of that controversy An inferior
court has assumed the power OF suspenaihg tne
authority of the State and it. remains 10 De seen
what The next Legislature will have to say on the
subject.
unou the forms ofustice, as practced by the courts
in the city of New Orleans. The matter was brougnt
before District Judge, and argued without the de-
PENDANTS having been notified to appear as we are
assured and without the commissioners being allowed
hearing in controversy to which they were one oi
the leading parties Such indecent haste 70 nuiliy
statute of the State is without parallel IN the history
of American Jurisprudence, and if the State 90 not
when the proper occasion arrives, vlndlcate the ma
jesty of her authority, we are most woully deceived
In the character of her present and prospective rulers
An assumption that law is unconstitutional does
not make it SO it must be decided so by the highest
authority known in the government of the State-the
Supreme Court. The question Of the constitutonaty
of this election law must be determined by this tr
buna or all the presumption of validity is in its
favor.
Lawyers seem to differ as to whether an election
can be held at all in New Orleans with an INDUCTION
remaining against the law, which provides for the
mode and manner, in compliance with the Constltu-
ton. The friends of the law of 1857 are inactive and
it would appear are letting their opponents monopo-
lie the field of candidacy. There is no appearance
Of political contest and we take it for grant ed tnat
the Democrats are resolved upon recognizing tne
legality of no election not held under the authority OF
the Legislature. What will be the future consequences
eleave to the decision of the propheticay Inclined
The Advocate states the case correctly. The in
junction will not be withdrawn by Mayor Waterman
| To withdraw lit would be puerile child's play. The
injunction was sued out pursuant to resolution OF
the Common Council and after one of the ablest law
yers in the country--Hon. Rande Hunt-had had
the subject under careful consideration. Further
| more, the Mayor has 10 right, in our opinion, to
withdraw the Injunction without the permission of
the Council, and that body does not convene until
the second Tuesday in October.
What the !" next Legislature will have to say re-
gardng legal writ issued by can inferior court in
strict conformity to law and the forms of law, it is
impossible for us to foretel 1t may, possibly divest
inferior courts" OF the power Of granting injunc-
tions but no such action can have retrospective
effect. .....
Instead of the " issuing Of this injunction being
whitening sarcasm upon the forms of justice, prac-
ticed by the courts in the in the city Of New Orleans
we respectfully beg leave to inform the Advocate
that there is not judge in the State who would
not have been compelled to have done as Judge
Eggleston has DONE The proper affidavit being made,
and suitable security rendered, provisional injunc-
ton necessarily and inevitably issues. The "Army
bill is held in state of suspension by provisional
| Injunction nothing more-and although we have no
authority to make statements in the premises
hestatingy venture the assertion that the Judge will
entertain the notion fix the day. and hear arguments
in the case for dissolution Of the Injunction when
ever the President of the Central Board of Com
missioners," or any member of said Board, or the
Superintendent of Elections shall make an app.
cation in the usual manner and form. No application
has yet been made, and we do not think any will be
made. Such is not the intention or wish of 'the lead
ing parties" They do not desire that the arguments
in the case should go before the honest masses prior
to the election. AT all events such is our deliberate
conviction If they do not fear the consequences Of
investigation, why do they not challenge and compel
investigation? If they are sincerely anxious that
the injunction should be dissolved, why do they not
take legal steps to have it dissolved? If they believe
that the "Army bill is legal and constitutional, why
do they not take legal steps to establish its legality
and cousttutionality Why do they fold their arms
and grumble, growl and threaten, while the courts
are open to them, and the laws grant them every
needful relief? These are questions worthy the at
tenton of the intelligent voters Of Louisiana, ant
will, we trust, be duly considered
The sur cast by the Advocate upon the Judge o
the Fifth District Court, is ungenerous and UNJUST
more upright magistrate sits not upon any bench il
this broad commonwealth, and few ADLER or NOR
learned jurists can be found These. are facts, th
verify of which the editor Of the Advocate can ascel
tain by application to the members Of our bar The
will youch for his qualifications and integrity. Their
was no indecent haste in granting the provisiona
Notwithstanding of the sort There no oppor
tunity for the exhibition of indecent haste" Tn
"leading parties created by the Army BILL cou
have applied for hearing the next day, and then til
case would have up for argument on its merits
which could not have occurred under the application
for the injunction So, if fault rests anywhere it rest
| with the " leading parties" of the Advocates ow
party--not with the Judge, or with his honor til
Mayor.
Further along the Advocate takes {" it for granite
that the Democrats are resolved upon recognizing til
legality of no election not held under the authorit
Of the Legislature" We have the supreme felicit
of informing the Advocate that the voters of Louis
ana do not exercise the right of suffrage under tn
authority of the Legislature The Legislature
but creature of the Constitution, and the Constr
ton guarantees the right of suffrage. Ten thousan
Legislative acts Of omission and commission could nc
deprive them OF that right Under no circumstances
long the organic law remains as it is, tina
prerogative be taken from them. 1t belongs to ther
it is inaenable-it is their attribute of suprem
sovereignty, which must remain intact and unalte
able until the structure of our Government is changed
The law of 1855 and the Army bill are substal
TALLY the same so far as the elective franchise is col
cerned They only differ in torms--drectory, nj
mandatory forms-and forms, such as the ones mel
toned. will not and cannot be made or construed I
work the disfranchisement of an entire communit
If the contrary can be made to appear the despotis
that exists in France would be far preferable to tt
irresponsible and ilimtable tyranny which will ext
in Louisiana.
The American party of New Orleans has appeale
to the law and the judicial tribunals of the Stat
and by the law and the judicial tribunals are the
willing to abide. They seek no remedy that the la
does not aiord-they are prepared to bow to an
obey the decisions of the courtsthey hold that the
: rights are nfringed, invaded and trampled upon
the oppressive, unconstitutional and unutteraby il
famous Army bill they have taken legal me
sures to test its validity, and should be declare
valid by the Supreme Court, they will submit-b,
not before. In the meantime. reckless and insar
threats Of disfranchsement pass them by as the id
wind. ...
IL