Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-04-20

Returning Board tho judge Of the election
and return of members Of the Legislature
its exercise Of that power was at war with
the principles Of republican government,
and might Justly excite the iveliest appre-
tensions.
2. BY the Constitution of the State such
q board could not have a power conferred
upon them such as was assumed TO be ex-
ercised. That instrument expressly pro
vides Git. ?, art. 34) that each house shall
be judge Of the qualifications, elections
and returns of its own members. 1t also
provides Git. 8, art. 46) that "Returns Of
all elections of members Of the General
Assembly shall be made to the Secretary
of State" The returns here intended are
manifeStly those by the lOcalelection boards,
and any attempted diversion Of them to the
hands of other officials without authority,
to sift them out and send up only such as
they may see ft, would be in manifest re-
pugnance to this article. We are at a loss
to perceive how the apparent conflict Of
the election law with the power Of the Leg
islature to Judge of the election of its mem
bers, can be reasoned away or excused.
/ Only two methods occur to US. Although
the Returning Board are to judge Of the
| election of members, and return only
such as they decide upon, it may be said
hat this leaves the House at liberty after
wards to review their decisions, and to seat
and unSeat according to its own judgment.
But, cOnceding this right, the House that
might do this would be, or might be, not
the House chosen by the people, but the
House composed Of persons certified to by
the Returning Board, who alone, under
the act, would be permitted TO participate
in the organization, and who, under the
present condition Of things in Louisiana,
might reasonably be relied upon to so SIX
things" that the real House would never
be permitted to exercise its constitutional
right. The Ill members, Of whom the
House is composed, might, to any extent,
at the option-Or, conceding the fairness Of
the BOard-accOrding to the judgment Of
this Board, be set aside for others who were
not chosen, and not one Of them could par
ticipate, except at the option of these 9TH
ers. Il is idle TO attempt the defense Of an act
which places a Board, with powers so con
elusive, between the Legislature and its
constitutional power and privilege.
But it may be said that the right of the
House is saved and protected by a clause
in the election law, that "qothing in this
act shall be construed TO conflict with arti-
Gle "a of the Constitution Of this State"
This is contained inthe section which gives
TO the Board its extraordinary powers over
the returns of members. If it means that
the statute shall be so construed as to pre-
serve the full constitutional privileges of
the House, then it means that the statute
shall be so construed as to nullify it. For
it is obvious that this power Of the Board
to judge of the returns with conclusive ef- |
feet, so far IS the organization Of the House
is concerned, cannOt stand with the cOnsti-
tutiOnal power Of the House to pass judg. /
ment for itself. As, therefore, the purpose
has evidently been that the statute should
be enforced, it must be supposed it was not
the intent that the Constitution should be.
The reasonable conclusion must be that
when it was declared that nothing in the
act should be construed to conflict with the
Constitution, the intent was, that no one
should be at liberty to discover in the Con-
stitution anything in conflict with the act,
however plain and palpable the cOnflict
might seem to be 10 a mind at liberty fee
ly TO compare them. In this sense, the
is perfectly in harmony with the
manifest general purpose of the election
law, and in this sense has effect been given
to it by the persons in power.
TTO BE Continued