New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-03-06
CONSISTENTLY ILLOGICAL.

CONSISTENTLY lLLUGlCAL.
The rule of legal evidence is, that sec
ondary testimony, by parole or otherwise.
shall only be valid where record evidence
can not be had This legal and logical
rule our neighbor the Fusionist, seem to
have disregarded consistently. First, one
or more officers were commissioned by
Governor WGrmoth on the ground that
their election was a matter of common
notoriety." Then the conscientious opinion
that the Superior and Supreme judges
were ignorant and corrupt was to justify
disregard of their orders. Then the
same reasoning was employed to relieve
the citizens from any obligation to COM
ply with the law imposing taxes for the
support of the government. The latest
specimen of this doctrine, SO new to the
Mississippi valley, is this: j. I. Ludeling,
Esq, was Implicated as defendant in
bill filed to set aside a purchase made by
him at a railroad sale. Upon trial, a
court having jurisdiction dismissed the
bill with decree of costs to the
defendant, Labelling. In assa!ing the
validity of the Supreme Court
decision in favor Of the present
State government. the organ of the
Fusionists found it necessary to attack the
personal character of Hon. J. T. LUde-
ling, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
This WAS done by imputation Of corrup-
ton, as evinced in the matter of the pur-
chase at the railroad sale. For this Lude.
ling brings an action for libel Now. as
the columns of a newspaper allow a lati-
tude of testimony which would not be ad-
mitted in court. the Fusion organ pro.
poses to introduce in proof Of the alleged
libel the allegation of the attorney in the
bill filed against Judge iudeling in the
case referred to. This attorney, by virtue
of profession which allows the best to
be alleged for client and the worst
against an adversary, is assumed TO be
evidence to Justify the alleged libel. Il is
proved that the allegations of the attor-
ney were refuted conclusively by the de-
cree in favor of and acquitting Ludeling
Yet this sort of secondary and refUted
testimony is Sc: up against the decree of
court conclusive of the matter involved in
a cause decided, just rs the report of
Senate committee is still held as law, not
the report vas rejected by
the Senate.
But the argument goes still further.
The Fusion organ sets up common no.
toriety and personal convictions as para
mount to the power Of lag. It is insisted |
hat the decisions Of the courts nav be |
lisregarded in any case, because they have |
not, in all cases. succeeded in convicting |
guilty men. As q curious specimen of |
his sort of reasoning. the example of ".
4. Garland. who. having been charged |
With default Of public money. was ac-
quilted. He WAS universally believed to
De guilty. In like manner ". N. Tweed |
las been indicted for similar offense.
md may also be acquitted. Do these eX-
IMPLIES justify the reasoning that, because
hese men have escaped the penalty due
o 'hef ohenSes' all othef persons ac.
lui''eo D! other courts must De sull'y OF
he wrongs charged in the indictment Of
lie ,'"'e attorney Yet sncn Is the logic
. '"e '"''oh organ " !" s'''Fceiy
ie'''an', 10 aa''' I" ~" '"e'
Hal n''F "''loh AGAINST '.ode1!hS was
d" .,.. 'o.'e'' MN " :" VeFun'st! IA.
nv! Ava l''i' .,";''' ~: was ''Il"s'"
~ 4'l"~, - MI '-ti:e, % '4