New national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1870-1874, 1873-02-13
important Louisiana Dccis;of>s

AHsP"s tsAhs s-ouhssENI DtcsSsOfeS.
| We take the following from a correspond.
enco in the Washington Chronicle Of the 9Th
instant:
The Supreme Court Of Louisiana has lately
rendered two important decisions bearing
very materially upon the questions at issue
between the Democrats and Republicans of
the State, and the result Of the late election
there, which Congressional committee is
| now investigating in this city.
The first decision was rendered on January
"a, in contest between the kellogg and
Warmoth returning boards Of election,
wherein was directly raised the question
as to which Of these was the legal board.
The court held that the Kellogg board was
the legal one, and that the board constituted
by Governor Warmoth had no more power to
declare the results of the election than any
other private individuals.
The second decision was rendered on jan
uary 30, which was the determination of
contest between p. II. Morgan, claiming to
be an associate justice Of the Supreme Court,
against John IL. kcunard, claiming to hold
the same Office.
To understand the latter decision it is ne
cessary to state the facts connected with the
controversy.
hennard was. appointed an associate ius-
tlce OF the Supreme Court BY Governor War
moth on the sd Of December, 1872, vice W.
W. Howe, resigned, and took possession of
the Office Oh the same day, but he was not
confirmed by the Senate as required by the
constitution Of the State. His tenure was
therefore precarious one. Shortly after
ward Governor Warmoth was impeached by
the House OF Representatives and suspended
from his Gubernatorial functions. On the
: Noti,>, n
back, who succeeded Warmoth by virtue Of
his holding the office of Lieutenant Governor,
appointed z. II. Morgan to the vacancy on
the Supreme bench created by the resignation
OF Associate Justice Howe, and Morgan was
duly confirmed by the Senate. Kennard.
however, refused to retire, and Morgan was
compelled to institute 4 suit, having for its
object to enforce his right to the office. The
lower court decided in favor of Morgan, and
kennard appealed to the Supreme Court,
which affirmed the decision Of the lower
court. In the course of its opinion the Su-
preme Court incidentally passed upon certain
other disputed questions, which were neces-
sarv to the conclusion arrived at, and it is
the iect OF the present communication to
set ,!.esc forth, because Congress has no
power to go behind the determination of the
-ipreme Court of 4 State upon questions
within its jurisdiction.
Aennard urged several objections, (demur-
rers, but the merits Of his defense to Nor.
gan's suit consisted in substance of the fol-
lowing points:
l. That he was duly appointed by the Gov
ernor OF the State to the Office in question.
and having been qualified and taken posses
sion after compliance with all legal require
ments, his term Of Office had not yet expired,
claiming that under article siyty-one of the
Constitution he was entitled to hold and ex-
ercise the functions Of the same until the end
OF the next session of the Senate.
2. That tho act Of the Legislature under
which Morgan claims to proceed is null and
void, because viClative OF section one, article
fourteen Of the Constitution of the United
States, which torbids any State from making
law which shall abridge the privileges and
linmunities OF its citizens, and prohibits any
State from depriving any person Of life, lib
erty, or property without due process of
law, &C., and if said law is void the court has
no jurisdiction.
CIhis latter plea was made because Ken.
nard had prayed for a trial by jury and his
prayer had been refused. He contended that
jury trial was one Of the privileges and i'm
munlties OF citizens guaranteed bv the four
teenth amendment to the United States Con-
satution, and that without trial by jury there
was not that "due process by law" guaran-
teed by the same constitutional provision.)
10 these pleas the court answered, (keu-
nard' exceptions having been oyerruled:)
iliat. That jury trial guaranteed by the
Federal Constitution refers ouly TO trials in
Federal courts, and not to those in the State
courts. The authorities cited were Martin
I 436; Rob-, l2G; La. Annual 4lo. That
the hurteenth amendment Of the Constitu.
lion OF the United States makes no change
& enhipct Qf Jury trio IL in, al, z
! the safe courts.
! serond. That under the practice in Louisi.
ana he prayers for jury trial had not been
made in time. Ga. Code Practice, 4gi, 495. !
| Thirdly. That jury trial in a case like this
| was expressly forbidden by the act Of the
Legislature CT the State Of January Is, 1873.
| Fourthly. That there had been a session OF
the Senate after Remarks appointment. and
that the same had ended. He had. therefore
held the office, as he claimed, until the eud
Of the next session Of that body, and the Sen.
ate had not confirmed him, but had confirmed
the appointment Of Morgan.
To arrive at their conclusion of the fourth
plea the court necessarily had to pass upon
the question as to whether Acting Governor
Pinchback, who issued Morgan's commission
was the legal Governor OF Louisiana at the
time and also upon the question raised iu
argument rs to the legality Of the body call.
ing itself the Senate Of Louisiana which con.
frned the appointment of Morgan. Here
quote the precise language OF the opinion o.
the court:
ITO determine these questions, ;" saws the
court, sit Is necessary 10 know II Morgan:
appointment was, made by the Governor o
the State, and II that appointment has beer
confirmed by the Senate Of the State.
1.-THE appointment was made By P. B. 9
Pinchback, who signs the commission a
Acting Governor Of Louisiana. Was hs
Acting Governor Of the State?