The New Orleans crescent. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1866-1869, 1869-04-01
REAPPEARANCE OF GOV. WELLS.
BUT HE DOESN'T GET 1T.

The following decision, recently delivered by
Judge Theard, of the Fourth District Court, OF.
plains itself:
The State of Louisisns. Ok rel. J. Madison Wells,
vs. g. n. Wickli6e, auditor-Fourth District Courf,
No. Il .s96-Judge Theard presiding.-The relstor
in this case represents that he was elected gov
ernor of Louisiana for term Of four years, COM
mencing on the first Monday In January. 1866, and
continuing to the first of January 1870, and that
the Constitution Of 1864 was ct the time recog-
nized by President Lincoln, President johnson
Gers Of this State. ss the fundamental law Of the
State Of Louisiana.
He then AYERS that on the ID June, 1867, he was
Illegally, violently and forcibly attempted TO be
superseded In the functions Of his Office, and the
duties thereof assigned to q military appointee !;
and that said act was done without notice, trial,
any form Of law or usage, civil or military, and
was absolutely null and void.
In consequence Of which nullity, the relator
concludes that be is legally and Justly entitled to
bis sslary-a little over eight thousand eight hun
dred dolars-up to the time of inducting into
Office Of his excellency H. O. Warmoth, governor
Of this State under the present Constitution, and
prays for mandamus against q. II. Wicklife,
ESQ.,, State auditor, who refuses to issue war.
rant for the aforesaid salary.
The refusal of the auditor ID based on the fol-
lowing grounds:
the Legislature to pay the claim Of relator; the
duties Of the auditor being purely ministerial, he
cannot warrant on the State treasurer without q
specific appropriation as required by article l04
of the Constitution.
he was not governor during the time specified In
his petition, the Office of governor during that Pc
riod havi. & been filed by Benjamin F. Flanders
and Joshua Baker, who have received their sala-
ries in full.
The pleadings present no other facts; but in
their argument, the learned counsel for the rela-
tor have raised the following points;
1. The constitutionality Of the several acts Of
Congress, known as the reconstructon acts, un-
der which Gen. Sheridan assumed the power to
remove Gov. Wells.
2. The removal of Gov. Wells the counsel say,
was an arbitrary and tyrsnnica act, the act of an
usurper, and was unauthorized under the acts OF
reconstruction.
1t shall suffice for the purposes of this decision
to inquire whether this court can in any manner.
shape or form, touch the questions raised by
these proceedings.
/ believe not.
This court is established under the Constitution
of 1865, and that Constitution is itself the offspring
of the reconstruction acts Of Congress-. If these
acts are unconstitutional, 1t logically follows that
the Constitution of 1868 is mere nuiiity and that
this court, which is its creature, has no legal ex-
istence II 30. the theory Of the counsel for the
relator is correct how can this court try this
case?
The constitutionality Of the reconstruction acts
cannot therefore, be examined by this court.
II Is question, In the reconstructed States,
which belongs properly to the national courts,
who alone can decide it.
As to the right of Gen. Sheridan at the time, to
remove Gov Wells, II is unnecessary to inquire. as
his, Gen. Sheridan's, acts were subsequently ap-
proved and sanctioned by Congress. (See sec.
of act Of 18th July, 1861
1t is therefore an accomplished fact sanctioned
by Congress; 1t is an act done by de fdcto gov
ernment then under the control Of military ruler.
That government has been overthrown and q ne W
nuo "a liaho hod in IN N r.