New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-08
sUPERIOR DISTRICT COURT.
Judge Hawkins Decides that HI. N. Ogde
" n never Attorney General.

In the suits of l.. Bouny vs.. Frank Pac'
and of A. w. Stewart vs. Il. DeBlols
brought by Mr.. Ogden as Attorney Genera
under the intrusion in office act, Judg'
Hawkins on Monday sustained the excep
tions and dismissed the suits because A.. n
Ogden was not Attorney General OF tn'
State when the suits were flied.
Judge Hawkins said:
Courts will take judicial cognizance o.
the laws of the State and OF the puoHc ael'
Of the officials of the State. and also OF de
crees, and proceeding had before the Jun
cial tribunals. 1t is a matter famlilar 20
everybody that the law regulating the
elections prescribes the mode IN winch Lnt
result can be asceTtained; and until Vhat
proviso of the law is complied with no
presumption is in faver of any one;
either private citizen or officer. 1t is also
provided by the act regulating the manner
of ipouiring into the rights to ONCE, "neFe
there is a contest, that the State is properly
a party and must be a party to all proceed
ings Of that character had under tha1 stat-
ME. The State has an interest IN ascertain
ing who are her legally qualified oiheers,
and sha has provided a mode IL winch that
can be ascertained; and Che may, on her
own motion, institute proceedings IN the
name of any one claiming to hold an Office.
fSapd have it judicially ascertained whether
he il an intruder or not. The statute also
provides that the party claiming the office
NAV he Joined with the State, but that Is
not a necessary part of the proceeding. The
proceeding could be carried on without
taking any notice Ofthe person claiming.
But wien the State joins the party claim
ing, The court must pass upon the merits OF
that pretence, and at the same time 1t ma
declare that the person against whom the
suit for intrusion is instituted, in the name
of the State and by authority of the state
is an intruder. Consequently. when 1t IS
ascertained that the person is intrudins into
office, Judgment will be rendered go declar-
ing it; and Judgment may be rendered in
the same action declaring that the person
| claiming is not properly entitled to the of
fee, and then the office will simply be
vacated. That is the solution of that con-
tingency.
In this case it is a matter that the court
will take notice of, that Mr.. Ogden, the
person who filed this petition, held a COM
mission from the Governor of the State,
aue that he holds q commission from the
Governor Of the State, and that in one of
the courts of the State he was recognized
as Attorney General-perhaps in two. Il pit
that is not all the recognition necessary.
There are more han two courts. There Is
the Supreme Court, the district courts, and
the parish courts. Recognition by one
would confer no title, and give no right or
authority, 70 any person TO occupy that
office. 1t is merely a custom. l do not
suppose that it adds any force or condition
or advantage 70 a persona simple recog-
milton. Blu if it is to have any effect, he
must run the whole round.
The same application to be recognized
was formally presented to the Supreme
Court, and the action of that tribunal, 1t Is
understood. and / so regard it, in all mat
tiers is binding on courts of inferior Jnr1s-
dicticn. That tribunal declined, after W
or three applications, to recognize any
right; it is a notorious fact, and one of
which | will take judicial notice, and
which l know personally, th6t they de-
clined to recognize Mr.. Ogden as Attorney
General.
In so far az this is TO have any effect
whatever, the action of the Supreme Cour
must be conclusive.
But it is immaterial as to whether all the
courts in the State had recognized him.
That confers no additional authority or
right TO Office. and it is judicially known
that in the First District Court, where Mr..
Ogden claims to have been recognized as
Attorney General, that he has since been
refused that recognition, and that that
recognition is now conferred upon another.
Another fact is judicially known to
the court: That Mr.. Belden, subsequently
to this matter of his introduction OF Ogden
to the Supreme Court, and to other courts,
perhaps, has acted in all the courts as At
torney General; that after he had politely
and civilly gone into the Supreme Court
and formally introduced Mr.. Ogden as his
successor. that on the very day he per-
formed that act. he signed a petition in the
pame of the State of Louisiana, as Attorney
General. That is an act that rather over
rides his introduction of Mr.. Ogden. The
reason, 1 suppose, for Introducing him was
that he was in some doubt himself. Things
were going at that time fast, and rather
and starchy. He thought he was
superseded. Blu when the Supreme Court
declined to receive the application for
recognition of Er. Ogden, on the same
day he signs a petition where the State
is a party. SO there never was apparently
any interegnum in the office of Attorney
General at all, Sand Mr.. Belden never de-
ciined TO institute or prosecute proceedings
where it was made the duty of the Attorney
General, up to the time when his success
sor-who was not ~Ogden-was officially
notified Of the fact of his election and was
regularly commissioned.
Besides the Supreme Court, the First
District Court, right on the heel of Mi. Bel
den's declination TO act, has recognized as
Attorney General another person than Og-
den. This court has also done so.
Inasmuch as these proceedings are pro-
cecdings by the State of Louisiana, and re-
quired to be conducted in the name OF the
Attorney General, or when the Attorney
General can not act, in the name of the Dis
trict Attorney l believe, and it appearing
thai the person who signed these proceed
ings was not at the time, or subsequently,,
or at any previous time Attorney General.
as a matter of course the State of Louisiana
can not make ii good. The present Attorney
General has no right to do so.
A private citizen has brought suit, it is
true; but he has not complied with the law.
Perhaps the State OF Louisiana might con-
olude that this person, against whom suit is
brought, is an intruder in Office. The de-
PENDANT has a right, then, to know by what
authority proceedings are brought against
him, and whether he is obliged TO answer
proceedings irregularly brought.
Suppose this court, through ~amiability,
entertains the writ, and it is ascertained
that it had no right to, and it allows these
proceedings to go to judgment, and final
Judgment is rendered declaring this person
an intruder. and declaring som other
person the duly qualified officer, and the
State was to come afterward and ignore all
these proceedings. it having been no party
to this-what would be the consequence
The judgment would be stricken with alb
solute %nullity, and would avail either party
nothing.
The exception ia, therefore, sustained, and
the suit dismissed.
st. Charles Street Railroad Company.
Yesterday the case of the st. Charles
Street Railroad Company VS.. the city of
New Orleans-a suit to annul Judgment for
taxes, on the ground that the property
taxed is exempt from taxation, was sub
mitted, as was the case of Mr.. NJ. Brabazon
vs.. city of New Orleans, to recover value
of property taken by the city for a street.
This is q special to the st. Louis Demo
erat:
WAsHISGroN. D. c., January 3.-Senator
IL a.Inn ..intn H. cnllnu.-. - IL.