New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-04-30
MONOURE VS.. DUBUCLET,

ton of the courts. There can be 40 OBJ
lection to such proceeding. On tn
contrary, it is gratifying to have {
solution of the question by an impartia
tribunal. The parties to the suit boil
possess the confidence and respect of thu
community, Mr.. Dubuclet having beer
repeatedly referred to by Democrats il
favorable terms, and Mr.. Moncure's char
acter, ability and integrity commencing
him to Republicans.
Mr.. Moncure's purpose is said to be t.
test the actual ownership Of the office as
given by the expressed will Of the people
on the plea that that will was disregardet
by the Returning Board. 1.-The can make
out case sustaining this plea, his claim
to the office will appear much stronger
than as presented in the Picayune. The
arguments there offered do very well TO,
the purpose of convincing its readers, and
perhaps giving confidence to Dir. Mon
cure, but will have little weight III court.
To begin with, whether the court as
sumes jurisdiction or not, it is not likely
to be persuaded to do so merely because
the Returning Board RENTED certain
parishes to the Legislature. Nor is 1t a
legal argument that the court can revise
the boards decision and at the same time
assert there was no decision. The board
did give decision, however, and Mr..
Dubuclet is Treasurer, because the board
discovered that by the will Of the people
he was entitled to the Office by majority
of 95S votes. It is this result which MIR.
Moncure seeks to defeat, and, of course,
can only do so by legal proof that the will
of the people was in his favor, and not IN
favor of Mr.. Dubuclet.
When he comes before the court he will
not be likely to attempt to convince the
court by the reasoning Of the Picayuee
that his sui. ''avoids all contact with the
Returning Boards prima tacie authority
to promulgate the result of an election,
and goes straight to the vital principle of
republican institutions, and in the next
breath pray the court to decide
l. Whether the Returning Board has
power to defeat the expressed and ascer-
tanned will Of the people.
2. Whether, such defeat having been at
tempted there is any remedy IN law to
and prevent the outrage.
Or, in other words, ask the court to pass
upon question declared in the petition |
not to be before it. It is the old absurd |
ity of the plaintiff demurring to the juris-
liction of the court in which he brings |
suit.
Some stress is laid on the fact that
he Legislature, animated by sentiments
transmitted from the Wal! street board,
admitted as members the Democratic
candidates AS Mr. Murrell would say,
hat was because they thought they were
elected. But their opinion is no more
violence than the opinion of anybody
Use, and will not influence the court.
Ir. Moncure's tender of this evidence
viii he met by the constitution, which
prevents any other tribunal than the
House or Senate from deciding who are
properly members. What the Returning
'oard did, what the congressional COM
littee did, what tie Legislature did,
r what compromise effected, has no
caring on Mr. Moncures legal strug-
lie to obtain the Office of Treasurer.
hose actions were founded on basis,
nd are now sustained by conviction, Of
Official expediency, and can not affect
le legal aspect of anybody's claims. If
ley did, there would now be four more
republicans, and four less Democrats in
be House of Representatives.
The Picayane places the question very
lirly in saying Mr.. Moncure considers
is being out of Office wrong which he
roposes to undo, and that such ques-
on invites the attention and solicitude of
le entire community. He seeks, there
re, to determine by the coart the will of
lie people, making the necessary allega-
on of inequity by the Returning Board.
e must, therefore. come into court pre- ,
.red to show not merely what the people
e supposed to have done, but what they
tended to do if not prevented. And .
ere he will meet his first difficulty. In !;
fering the statement of a majority for .
m in three parishes of 22l6 he will first
I'VE to prove this is the proper return of
e vote of these parishes and how it was
,tained before he can balance it against =
at already declared for Mr.. Dubuclet. q
he facts, if he shall succeed in getting =
yond this point, will chen appear as r
oper evidence that in these parishes n
any voters were prevented from deposit I
g their ballots by those who were OPP T
'sed to them, and thus the Majority was A
'elled to undue proportions. 1t will +
It show a fair expression Of the will Of O
e people to prove that the much re- y
ected Mr.. Dubuclet could not obtain
lgle vote i'll Bienyille parish. f
1t is well established maxim that he p
10 seeks equity must do equity, and il
urts enforce it in preventing suitors {
IN taking advantage of their own wrong. a
majority counted at poll Where the
nority were prevented from voting does
express the will Of the people. All 9,
inns for Office rest on the expression of ,,
S will, and the law guards it strictly. -,
here majority is unfairly obtained, .
ether BIZ previous intimidation or !
.eats, OF surrounding the polls with shot !.