Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-06-03

Decisions of the State Supreme COurt
I'm Contested Election Cases-They do
not Anect the Status Of the kellogg
Government.
Correspondence of the New York Tribune.
New ORLEANS, May 29.-Northern
Journals of May 25, received here this
morning, contain an Associated Press dis
patch from Washington announcing that
the Supreme Court Of Louisiana has Just
decided two cases of contest for office under
the Intrusion act, and that in both the le-
gality of the officers lding under the
kellogg Government as sustained. AL.
though this statement is substantially cor
rect. the inference almost everywhere
drawn from it, hat the Supreme Court has
thus sustained the Kellogg Government, is
erroneous. The opinion in the case of
Bonner agt. Lynch states fully the grounds
on which the decision was rendered. John
M. Bonner received 8 majority of all the
votes cast for Judge of the Fourth District
Court of New Orleans at the November
election, was returned as elected, commits
stoned by Gov. Warmoth, and took his seat
on the bench. Subsequently B. L. Lynch,
another candidate, was returned as elected
bv the Lynch Board, and commissioned by
Acting Gov. Pinchback. He then ousted
Mr., Bonner by force and took the bench
himself. Mr.. Bonner sued Mr.. Lynch, uL-
erthe Intrusion act, and the case was taken
To the Supreme Court. This tribunal holds
that q having b5en already decided by the
Lynch Returning Eoard was the legal ore,
and as Mr.. Lynch was returned as elected
hv that Board and commissioned by the
Acting Governor, he cannot be said to have
intruded into the Office. The court further
says:
aFhe question, however, as to the cleo
ton of officers is a political question, and
courts Of justice have jurisdiction over them
only 50 far as the political department may
have authorized them to exercise jurisdic-
ton. Ii there were no statute authorizing
the trial of election cases before cOuIts,
they would be without authority to do so.
No statute comforting upon the courts the
powec to try cases of contested elections or
title 10 Office authorizes them to reverse the
action of the Returning Board. If we were
TO assume that prerogative we should have
To 90 still further and revise the returns of
the supervisors of elections, examine the
right of voters to vote, and, in short, the
courts would become in regard to such cases
mere officers for counting, compiling and
reporting election returns"
Farther on the Court says:
HThe only power the courts have under
the intrusion into office law is TO decide if
one or neither of the contestants has a legal
title TO the office, and the commission of
each is the evidence Of that. The Court,
therefore, decides that the Lynch Board,
having returned Lynch, and Acting Gov
ernor Pipchback having commissioned him,
il has no right TO 60 behind that evidence
to ascertain whether be received msjoilty
of the votes east or not, or even to exam
inc the returns TO see i the Board in add
ing did not make an arithuetical mistake
by which he was made to appear TO have
majority, but didno
II will thus be seen that these late oe-
caSions of tie court do not affect the status
of the kellogg government. They are
based on the former recognition OF the
fyvpch BoS1G. That recognition, Senator
Carpenter showed ia his report, was null
and void, first, because 0as conrt had no
testimony before it; and, seeoRds because
the court had no Jurisdiction.