The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1873-08-09

MONROE, LA, AUGUST 0, 1878.
TcoNr1NUED FROM FIRST PAGE
Governor. A law making it a crime
to hold Office without commission,
ought not to be enforced against those
who hold under commissions from the
Governor. I venture the assertion that
there is no court in this State or in the
civilized world that would convict
Morrison or Pickens in a criminal pro-
ceeding, of the crime of usurpation
under statute Al.
If they be not usurpers in the mean
ing of that act, Gas I believe,) no part
of the penalty thereof should be APP
piled by this Court, assuming that the
absolute nullity of all their official acts
is a part of the penalty. Criminal
law is always construed strictly in q
criminal statute there is no offence
except that specially described as an
offence, and there is no penalty except
that expressly declared to be the pen
atty. The statute in question has not
declared it to be crime to hold an
Office under a commission from the
Governor; it has not prescribed, as
penalty, that the official acts OF such
officer shall be absolute utilities. This
Court cannot declare the crime and
prescribe the penalty. 1t can only en-
force criminal law in proceedings by
Indictment or information. Until the
criminal act is legally ascertained, the
court cannot int1ict any part of the
penalty attached to said act or crime.
II the nullity of the official acts of
Morrison and Pickens be the result or
the legal consequence of their having
committed the crime announced in
statute Al, that crime must be judicial
ly established before the result or con-
sequence or additional penalty can be
inflicted.
1t would be unreasonable and absurd
to presume that MORTON and Pickens,
in advance of q trial, are guilty of the
crime announced in statute III, and
therefore part of tho penalty, or the
legal sequence of the penalty must
now be inflicted. But what has the
statute in question to do with this case,
civil proceeding to enforce bond
subscribed by the appellants? This
statute only defines a crime and pre-
scribes the penalty. It makes no
change whatever of the forms of crimi-
nal or civil proceedings, the rules of
practice, or tho jurisprudence of this
State. It authorizes no ono to be con-
demned unheard. It does nor presume
that any one is guilty. 1t does not
require tho court to enforce any part of
the penalty before the crime is judicial
ly established. Here tho appellants
resist the payment of the obligation
which they contracted when they
signed tho bond of lack Mcfarland
and they place their sole defence on
the ground that the commissioned,
sworn, bonded and recognized clerk
and sheriff of the court were not hold
ing under color of authority, were not
de JnctO officers, therefore the bond and
all other official acts of the court and of
these officers are absolute utilities.
I think have shown that this de-
fence cannot avail them, under the
we'll settled jurisprudence of this State,
and under tho principles Of universal
jurisprudence. I think have shown
that tho criminal statute No. IL in no
manner changes or proposes to change
the jurisprudence of this State on the
point in question; that it merely de-
fines Il crime, atilXes the penalty, and
leaves the rules of civil and criminal
practice and the jurisprudence of this
State untouched, and in no manner
modified.
1 have given this subject mature
consideration aud my conviction is,
that the Judgment of this court is CT
roneous. 1 therefore dissent in this
case.
Digger Indians Catching GrassllOppcrs.