New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-01-19
TIE COURTS.
Supreme Court


term of the Supreme Court commences. On
that day appeals from the parishes of st.
Charles. st. John the Baptist, st. James,
Ascension, Assumption, iatOurche and IeS-
rebonne are returnable IN this court.
The case entitled State of Louisiana ex
rel. X. G. Brew, ilstsict attorney, VS.. l.. B.
Watkins, Judge OF the Eighteenth Judicial
District of Louisiana, is fixed for trial.
This case involves the question OF intrusion
into office, and grows out Ct the election Ot
last November.
The State, etc. vs.. fimothv Doherty,
concerning the FAX c0llectorship Of the
Sixth District Of New Orleans. is fixed for
trial of the appeal on Tuesday, the twenty
srst instant Judge Hove represents She
State and reiatOr.
superios Distyics Coust-Contess Ees shs
office sf Asssejase Justice 81 Abe ENa
Vreme EOnrs.
y. r. Morgan w. ). H. Kennard.-Ihe
rule taken by the 4 tOraey General and
W. II. Hunt on behalf ef +: IA. Morgan on
J. Il. kennArd. came Mp FOR tr9aA IN the
Superior Court yesterday. The rule is for
defendant, Kennard % show cause why
p. H. Morgan should not be decyeed imme-
diately to be entitled to the office Of as
sociate Justice of the Supreme Court,
which office 10 now hold BY the defendant
The defendant, through his counsel,
Semmes & Mott and w. u. AOwe, ap-
peared and excepted to the jurisdiction OF
the court, on the ground that the law re-
Gently enacted under which the rule ID
taken was retrospective; thst no citation
had issued, and defendant was entitled tc
ten days aSes citation vithia WHICH g.
answer.
The matter was ably ergued ON both
sides. and the exception overruled. The
xuIe will be heard on the merits Tomorrow.
Judge Hawkins said:
The exception seems 10 Ise, iiTsr. ehat the
law under which the plaintiff &c reator
claims to act, or % portion of 1t, IS void. be-
cause Of its uncons;ituti0nalitv: and then.
if the law ia held to be constitutional that
it has not been complied with tf the law
is void absolutely, OF course the proceeding
falls. The objections urged OF rregularIty
are that this second statute conflicts with
the provisions of the first statute known as
the intrusion in office act, the act passed
for she purpose of testing persons right
TO office Il has been settled by numerous
decisions that proceedings under the lntru-
sion in Office act must be conducted III the
name OF the law officer of the State-the
Attorney General Oy the District Attorney.
There Is NO longer any question on that
subject. Suits Aave been frequently dis
missed where they were instituted by au-
thOrity Of private citizens, or persons Other
than the law officer of the State
The plaintiff proceeds in this case under
% different law. law reeently enacted,
which must be held as an act passed for the
pursose Of inquiring into the right OF per
son no hold judicial office, and which IN 20
manner conflicts with the general act on
the eubjecto Chat act is still intact and
all it's forms NAV be followed yet under the
law as it now exists. Ii is still the law, and
it Is in no manner interfeSe9 with by she
passage of this new acto
see nothing in the sxceptSo TO Sne ar-
ton shat the Attorney General has seen
propsr to take this sule in the name OF the
Attorney General The person claiming
the office might. under the new aCt-whlct
he could NOT under :hc former act--have
IN rs,it.ted this suit j. his OWN name . but
do net think that that 0verrioies or prevents
tn. Attorney General from, Joining IN the
action. He can DO This as an attorney at
law; and whether He does 81 in his official
CaDacitv or not, is matter or no conse-
uusncc That branch OF the sXceUuoB lss
OF course not well taken.
40 far as the argument goes that this
new act. under which this proceeding Is
taken. is retroactive or Retrospective III lis
effect, am unable to see that TINS oeJec,
ton has anv application on TINS class o.
cases. The State has at all times the right
to make incuir0 into who are her officers.
That results .rom her sovereignty and her
right TO make rules and regulations. / ne
officers of the State can not in any sense oe
classed with ordinary litigants IN SUITS
wher. rights at person or ot properly
are coneegneso Accurately speakihg'
no person haso or can haSe' 5r,
anv vested right 20 an office: Ihe
mere right which the State confess Oh
an individual to perform the duties OF an
Office. and for which she provides compenI-
sation, is not a vested right. The right al,
ways exists in the State 70 make every
necessary rule, by which it may be deter,
mined whether person is lawfully exer'
eising the duties of an office. The officers
have in sspae sense right but it Is q rish'