The Lafayette advertiser. [volume] (Vermilionville [i.e. Lafayette], La.) 1865-19??, 1869-09-25
tFrom the Opelousas Journal.1
SUPREME COURT.
DECISION OF THE PARISH JUDGE
QUESTION.
Appeal from the District Court, St. Landry.

Appeal from the District Court s.. Landry
G. ". HunsrEru, Dist. Atty. VS.. A. GARRrarEs
| Howe, j., read the opinion of the court
tn action WI instituted in b eha!f O
the k.e under TIE provisions Of the act o
Octobss-15, 1sGs. and a ulgmsnt was
asked, decreeing the defendant to be an
usurper Of. and intruder into, the Office o
parish Judge Of ST. Landry. and ordering
him to deliver the Office, with its apperten
ances to John Amrein who was made a
party plaintiff. The petition alleges that
the defendant unlawfully holds the Off ce,
being prohibited therefrom by the provi
sions of the fourteenth amendment Of the
United States; and by the provisions Of
an act Of congress Of June 25, 1868, ad-
uniting the State OF Louisiana to represen-
tation in Congress it being averred that
he took an osth as judicial officer (of the
State) to support the Constitution Of the
United States, and subsequently engaged
in insurrection and rebellion against the
same, and gave aid comfort to the enemies
thereof. 1t was also alleged that he had
forfeited his Office, and the same had be-
come vacant by his failure to file in the
Office Of Secretary of State, the oath Of
eligibility prescribed by Act No. 80 Of the
st atutes Of 1863.
The defendant answered by general
denial asserted that he was qualified 10
hold the office, and had been duly elected
and commissioned, and denied that Amrein
had ever been legally appointed or quail
fed.
After a trial upon the merits, the court
gave judgment for plaintiff, and the de-
fendant has appealed. =
The evidence in the case is chiefly docu-
mentary, and it appears that the defendant
had the Office of parish judge, before the
rebellion, and as such, took an oath to
support the Constitution Of the United
States; that on the 7th November 1851
he was appointed Clerk of the District
Court for the parish Of St. Landry to fill
vacancy; and that he had the Office for
some years thereafter. The first question
that arises in the case then, is, in the Ian
kU"KC Va tnO PIobutilS otICl
Was holding the Office Of the clerk of
ine District Court in the parish Of St.
Landry during the rebellion, and under
the authority and jurisdiction of a State
acknowledged as one of the Confederate
States Of America, after having held the
Office of parish judge, engaging in insur-
rection or rebellion against the United
States, or giving aid and comfort to the
enemies thereof"
In solving so doubtful and delicate a
question as this, we must not be unmind
full Of the complicated nature Of modern
civilization. The State is not a tribe of
barbarans, who may be engaged in rude
agriculture to day, and transformed. in
toto, to band of warriors tomorrow. The
necessities Of civil life will still exist in
civilized society, no matter how extensive
and desoIating may be the ravsges Of war.
Property must be bought and sold, offend
ers against the criminal laws must be ar
rested and punished, private rights must
often be adjudicated, SUGGESTIONS must be
opened, the claims Of heirs, minors and
married women must be ascertained and
protected and, therefore, it might wei! be
that iu the Parish of st. Landry. during
the late rebellion, the Office of clerk of
court might exist as necessity, without
the discharge Of its duties being considered
in any enlightened view an engaging in
insurrection or rebellion, or giving aid and
comfort to the enemies of the United
States. II, in 1861, every citizen of this
parish. except those who were absent in
the rebel army, had been a devoted friend
Of the United States, would it have been
their duty to refrain from holding these
minor local offices, and by leaving them
vacant, allow society to relapse into
chaotic condition9 We think not. On
the contrary. we spprehend that there
could be nothing in the discharge of the
legal duties of such officers that could be
considered as taking part, for or against,
or giving aid and comfort. to either one
side or the other, in the grea, controversy.
And in the special case before us, we are
constrained to think that if the defendant
confined himselfto his legitimate duties as
clerk, land there is no evidence that he
did not,) the fact tha: he held the Office
simply, would not 60 to disqualify
him under the act of Congress ofJune 25,
1868. admitting La to representation, and
the 14th amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
1fin legislative or other official capacity.
he had been engaged in the furtherance Of
the unlawful purposes Of the insurgents,
where the duties of his office necessarily
had relation to the support ofthe rebellion;
if he had held position created for the
purpose Of more effectuaI'y carrying on