The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1873-08-02

$s~JSAnE3OSA " pay UAO OOANA \%OSVVV1( duS1
brought the case up to the Supreme
Court upon a motion to try the validity
OF the official acts of Morrison and Pick
ems.
1t was admitted that the said officers
had taken the necessary oatl,s of Office,
and had, also, given the required bonds,
and it was In evidence that they had
obtained peaceable possession of the
Offices and records of their respective
Offices on the 23rd of December, 1872.
The main question seems to have
been, whether, or not, individuals COM
missioned az officers, on the 4th of De-
cember, 1872, by Gov. Warmoth, prior
to the published returns of the Hawkins
Board, and which officers were in I'M
disturbed possession of said Offices,
were, or we're not, de .fucto officers, on
and after December %, 1872, under the
law, and had power to perform acts
recognized as legal by our courts?
The opinion of the Supreme Court,
delivered by Chief Justice Ludelsng,
affirmed the absolute nullity of all the
official acts of Morrison and Pickens
(thus holding y while Justice wyley,
alone, dissented.
There was also another question de-
eided, to-wit:
Whether, or not, on a motion to set
aside ajudgment on McFarland's bond,
the fact could be inquired into as to the
rights of Morrison and Pickens to ex-
ercise the duties and powers of Sheriff
ana Clerk. whether, or not, this was
deciding, upon a collateral question,
the rights to office; a judicial proceed
ing forbidden by the settled jurispru-
dence of the State? This question was
decided Automatically by the majority,
that Is, that upon u motion to set aside
Ajudgnentona bond taken by Morrison
and Pickens, on the ground that these
men were usurpers in office, the Court
could inquire into their right Of office,
although In peaceable possession there
of, and could decide that they were
u5urpers. This was the main question
involved in the motion brought I'D on
appeal.
AS that the Act of the Kellogg legisla-
ture, passed to prevent usurpation in
office, WAS retroactive rs to Morrison
and Pickens, since it was enacted after
their induction into office under "the
authority ola commission issued by
the Governor of the State" which act
was passed on the 9Th day March, 1873,
these men having gone into office more
than two months before. The Court
held that they were usurpers, their
commissions being absolute utilities,
having issued In violation of law,-be-
cause they should have been declared
elected by the (Hawkins) returning
board, and commissioned according to
law, which was not the case.
COMMENTS.
That the right to office has been de-
cided collaterally, Notwithstanding the
motion was based upon this question
alone, appears to us quite clear. Was
the supreme Court necessarily and lie.
gally bound to determine the right to
office, In order to dispose of the motion
brought up by tho sureties on McFar-
lands bond? Was 1t such II motion,
under the jurisprudence of the Stnte,
as could properly have been brought to
the notice ofthe Supreme Court ?" We
think not. No matter, as the Chief
Justice says, If this was the only ques-
ton brought up, what the Court ooght
to have asked Is, els it a proper ques-
ton for this Court to decide, collater-
ally, whether, or not, A or B-not up
ON q legal and proper trial of the mer-
Its, hat-upon bail bond, is entitled
to the Office of sheriff, or clerkP 1t
was collateral inquiry into the rights
of Office, no matter what McFarland's
motion was-no matter who was Gov
erner, or which was the returning
board-and as such, the Supreme Court,
under It's own repeated rulings, could
not touch IL, without stultiication, and
q well-founded charge Of Fastening to