The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1874-04-19
THE UsURPATIoN UNDERMINED.
SECRET HISTORY OF THE RETURNING BOARD
DECISION.
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NULLITi.

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION NULLITY.
While the vampire, pinned to the State
with Federal bayOnets, is tanning the weak
kneed, and feasting on the life blood OF the
State, it may be well enough to turn back
few leaves in the history Of Louisiana, and
recall the manner in which the usurpatlon
was naugurated. The first move was taken,
it is true, in the L. S. Circuit Court, but the
usurpers thought it absolutely necessary for
their purposes to obtain decision from the
Supreme Court Of the State; and in order to
obtain a suspensire appeal in the Board OF
Returning Officers suit, from the judgment
signed by Judge Gilmore, on the Sd day OF
December, 1872, they did not hesitate to fall
slfy the record, and steal or suppress the
original Judgment signed by Judge Gilmore.
This is an undeniable fact, and the proof,
strong as holy writ, is in the hands OF the
Committee of Seventy, and is in the hands
of Senator Carpenter, in Washington, or at
least will be.
The facts are briefly these On the 10Th
of November, Judge Dibble rendered judg-
ment in favor Of the Lynch-Hawkins Board:
but this Judgment never was signed. A mo-
ton for new trial was made and submitted
to Judge Gilmore, the successor Of Dlbble'
and on the Sd of December, 1872, Judge
Gilmore granted "A new trial for the reason
that the election law Of 1872 abolished IN
toto the returning board, and there were no
parties before the court. Thereupon Mr..
Mott, of counsel for the Wharton Board,
moved to dismiss the suit, and Judgment
was rendered dismissng The suit, which
Judgment was signed instdnfer. On the 18th
Of December, after Judge Elmorc had been
ousted, the petition of intervention and
appeal of A. p. Field was filed; and on the
back of that petition an order was signed by
Judge Il L. Lynch, granting derolutire
appeal from the judgment signed on the Sd
Of December, which original Judgment had
not IS yet disappeared. A transcript Of
appeal was made; but, in copying the judg-
ment of Gilmore, the gentleman who made
the transcript was ordered to copy from the
minutes and not from the original judgment.
As the signature to Judgment is not en-
tered on the minutes, Of course, no sigma
ture appeared in the first transcript pre-
pared in the case.
About this time, it will he remembered a
telegraphic dispatch was sent to W.sh !.i 3;; v
tonic AttornseyJ GaaGiitRefal Williams, if We
! iiNhissmber rightly-saying: "The Supreme
Court of Louisiana will next Monday decide
the case of the Board of Returning Officers
in favor of the Lynch Heron Board-ol
words to that effect.
But apparently they needed a suspensive
appeal, and how to get it was the all-impOr-
tant question. The order for devolutive ap-
peal was suppressed, the original Judgment
signed by Gilmore suppressed and made
away with, and on the I'd of January, 1873,
Judge Hawkins recused himself, Judge
Lynch signed copy of the original jndg-
ment thirty days after the original judgment
was signed and granted suspension
appeal.
This is the manner in which the case came
before the Supreme Court of the State. We
are told that the man is known who stole
the original Judgment and sold it to pro-
minent Rad. for very small pecuniary con-
sideration. Let him make clean breast of
it. Come up, Mr.. Grocery Clerk and tell us,
what became Of that judgment.
The effect Of these facts would be to rem
der the decision of the Supreme Court in
the above case of no effect, as the question
decided was not in contemplation of law
before them. .....