New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-04-30
DECIsI0Is n GASES OF CONTESTS Fo1


.,ss sssae azz 0RPI0E.
There is great pretense of Ignorance
set up by certain partisans, as to the rule
established by our courts in: the trial G
contested election cases. We are nc
much surprised, however, to hear com
plants from the opposition that they cal
not understand the position of our Sup
RENE Court on this question, for it some
times unfortunately happens that mel
who have the capacity to manage ware
meetings are terribly confused when the.
attempt to apply principle of law
morality or philosophy to a condition o
facts.
Not long since contest occurred IL
Lafourche parish over one of the Offices
between Messrs. Knoblock and Collin.
This resulted in each party pursuing the
other under the intrusion act. Two cases
were made up, which were, however,
finally consolidated and sent up to the
Supreme Court for decision. Judge Tai.
iaferro delivered the opinion Of the court.
The pleadings showed that each of the
contestants relied upon their respective
commissions. Knoblocks commission
was dated the fourth of December, 1872,
and signed by Governor Warmoth. Col
Inns was dated the seventeenth of the
same month and year, and signed by
Acting Governor Pinchback
Counsel for Knoblock wished to ira
verse the returns of the election upon
| which Collins commissioned was based,
but the court overruled them for the rea-
sons given in the syllabus, which we copy
below:
Under the intrusion act it does not ap-
pear that authority was con eerred upon the
courts to 20 beyond an investigation of the
titles set up by the contestants for the Office
in controversy.
A review of all the cases adjudicated by
this court under the intrusion act will show
that in every instance not one will be found
which depended tor its solution upon the
inquiry as to which of the contestants OBJ
tanned the larger number of votes.
The adjustment and compilation of cleo
ton returns, determining The number of
legal and illegal votes cast for each candi-
date, declaring the result of an election and
furnishing the successful. candidate with
the proper certificate, in short superintend-
ing and controlling. all the details. of an
election belong properly to-, the political de-
partment of the government. 49,: 80"
No authority is delegated to the judiciary
under the intrusion act to discuss, modify
or abolish the. official returns Of the regular
Stats returning officers Such: right can
not be assumed as an. implied power .:a-.
It is only Under the statutory provisions
of 1855 that courts ::can proceed in relation;
to parish offices. and. through the agency
of juries to supervise the: counting of votes;
correct calculations, purge the polls of ,
illegal votes, ascertain and establish ma
jorities. 1t 'is confined to cases. where no
commissions have issued, ~.
The case of Knoblock vs.. Collin did
not come under the law of 1856. Each.
Of the parties presented commission ;.
upon which he relied. When Collin at
tackled the commission of his opponent
the latter sought to defend by bringing
returns into court But this was ruled
out for the reasons stated. The court
found that one commission bad been is
sued before the returning officers had pro-
mulgated the result Of the election, which
was held to be fatal to its validity. Col
Inns commission was of date the seven
teenth, after such PRONUNCIATION, and his
right to the Office decreed. 1t will be re-
membered that both parties had proceeded
against each other under the intrusion |
act.
The case of Magloire VS.. Barbin, was a
simple contest for Office under the act OF |
1856. One of the parties, Barbin, claimed |
in his pleadings, to have a commission.
But he did not state. from whom he re-
ceived it, and failed to exhibit it to the |
court. As he offered this commission in
the court below it was his duty to see that |
it came up with the record. 1t is the duty
Of the appellant to see that the record con-
tains all the evidence on which the case
was tried.
This commission of Barbin was the
principal evidence on which the defend
mt relied. Without it he had no case
lnder the form of action. The triplicate
returns in the case of Knoblock VS.. Collin
we're decided by the court to be inadmis-
able, and were therefore stricken from
he record As the defendant had first
Jet up claim founded upon commits
ion, he was bound to produce it when
allied upon for the purpose Of having the
question determined as to its validity.
Having abandoned his own testimony he
lad no case at all, and the court was
obliged to dismiss his appeal.
Now it seems to us that the principles
,pon which the Supreme Court acted in
hese two cases are SO plain and simple
hat child might readily comprehend
hem. For this reason We call the igno-
ance on the subject which is displayed in
ertain quarters as merely pretense. We
AXE it that Democratic partisan, even
hough blinded by prejudice and warped
y selfish desire to grasp everything
vithin his reach, is capable of seeing that
man who goes into contest for Office
nth a valid commission in his pocket,
Possesses an advantage over one who has
10 commission at all, good or bad.
ADVICE GRATIS. Ii