The Caucasian. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1874-1875, 1874-04-18

ouUulu lHttuCo SOuSICSS CIsIClu'ly y
to consider whether, under all the
circumstances, it is best to do this
or chat, or to do nothing; but on
the question I am discussing-the
rightfnlnees Of this government
say whether it be upheld there by
Federal force one year or five is
immaterial If it be a legal govern.
ment, it was so the day it was set
up. If it was not then, it is not
now; and we understand how it
has been held up from that time to
this.
But let me say a few words in re-
gard to these remarkable decisions
of the State court Of Louisiana.
The Senator says we are bound by
them. He refers to the settled
doctrine that in the Federal Judi
cial courts a a line of decisions of a
State court setting a principle of
local law is always followed when
the Federal courts pass upon the
same question. He must be equal
~ we'll aware that that rule rule is
subject to a good many important
exceptions, and one ofthese is, that
if the decisions of the State court
are not harmonious, the. Federal
courts will follow that decision
which it considers most consonant
with sound principle. This has
been over and over again determin-
edsby the Supreme Court.
Let me say, however, before
coming to this, that the ground
upon which the judicial courts of
the Union follow the decision of
the State courts is that an act of
Congress has prescribed the State
laws as rule for decisions in the
Federal courts in cases where they
apply; and in ascertaining what
the State law is, the decisions Of
the State court, if they are uni
form, and have been continued
through a series of years and beer
respected by the bench and bar of
the State, are taken to be the high
est evidence of what the local law
is; but not so if they are inconsis-
tent. The Supreme Court of the
United States, in the case of the
Ohio Life and Trust Company VS..
Debold, 16 Howard, 432, and again
in Gelpecke vs.. Dubuque, 1 Wal
lace, 175, and in Hayemeyer VS..
Iowa County, 3 Wallace, 294, and
in many other cases that might be
cited, have established this excep-
tipn to the rule, that if the decis-
icf,s OF the State court are not cou-
sibtent, the Federal court will fol
low those which they regard cor
rect in principle:
| undertake to say that any man
who VIII take the decisions render
ed by tile Supreme Court Of IIouisi-
ana, commencing in may, 1o72-
the two decisions which read here
yesteraay--and the decisions which
they have made since this contest
arose, viii find it impossible to en-
tertain the slightest respect Tor
anything that court can declare.
In the case which | read from yes
terday they held in words that the
removal OF Bovee by
Warmoth was an abso-
lutte nullity; that he never ceased
to be Secretary Of State tor one
that Heron, the man he
as his successor, never |
was Secretary of State at all. And
yet, when they came subsequently
to decide between the two canvass
ing boaros-the Lynch board and
the Warmoth board-because it |
was necessary to sustain the Lynch |
board, they decided exactly the re-
verse. | will try to find that de-
cision, as it SO well illustrates what
[ mean. Bear in mind that this
court, six months before this cleo
ton was held, and when there was
no contest, no temptation to do any
hing wrong, had held that War
moths attempt to remove Bovee
was an absolute nullity that his
to appoint Heron was ab
void; that Heron never
vas secretary OF state, and could
perform none of the duties Of Sec
'etary Of state except the routine
business of the Office, and as to
whether he could do even that they
lecllned to express an opinion.
Now see the attitude in which
he court is placed. In May they
hey decided that Bovee was not
'emoyed and Heron never was
secretary OF State. In December,
Nhen it was necessary to sustain
he other side OF the question, they
lccIle that Heron was secretary
IT state, and that the governor,
Who had removed Bovee as sccre
ary Of state and appointed Heron.