The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1876-05-24
OUR STATE TREASUR E r

/
The recent decision of the Supreme
Court, as rendered by old Talliaferro,
in the suit of j. C. Moncurc vs. An
tome Dubuclet, comes home to US
rightly now. It declares the Return
ing Board tc be the source of all off,
cial authority in the State and an alb
solute and fnal arbiter. The infa-
nous Superior Court, whose Judge
has recently died, dismissed the suit
upon the following exceptions:
81. That there is in the REALTORS
suit an improper joinder of parties,
and an improper emulation of differ
ent causes of action.
2. That there is nc cause Of action
set up by relator's petition against
respondents.
3. That there is a ccmmingling Of
allegations in the petition, leaving
it doubtful what cause of action
the relator seeks to prosecute.
4. That if the object be to contest
the election of Antoine Dubuclet, the
respondents have no interest in the
contest, that this court is without
jurisdiction ratiOnae m0teria; that
the law does not authorize the con-
testation Of the election of State
Treasurer, and if he did the action is
prevented by ten days.
! 5, That there is no cause Of action
against respondents, whatever may
be the suit; that courts are without
Jurisdiction to inquire into their &C
ton as Returning Board, or to pre-
scribe their course of action; that
| the law prescribes their duty, and
| their acts are limited by their sound
discretion under the law, and their
findings are not subject to review by
any court"
The decision surprises no one, and
hence we must now, more than ever,
have sleepless eye to that Counting
Board, for it is ready and ever will
ing to repeat such cheats and frauds
as often as the people will remain
passive to their acts.
The manner in which the Court
disposed of the question must be
convincing to all, who will read the
following in Judge WHY'S dissenting
decision:
~ will not impute to the General
Assembly the lamentable weakness
of giving right and neglecting to
furnish remedy to enforce it. Nor
do / think it proper for this court,
invested with jurisdiction both of law
and equity, to permit substantial
rights to be lost for technical reasons
or to decline to protect citizen in a
most valuable right simply because
there is no statute prescribing the
form for the action. In my opinion,
if, a right exists, the courts of the
State, being courts of law and equity,
can give adequate relief as required
by the constitution.
4 4 +
In my opinion where legal right
of citizen has been invaded, or
where there is a wrong, there is ade
quate remedy, and the courts are
open to administer justice without
denial and unreasonable delay. he
lieve there is ample power in the
court to redress the wrong, of which
the plaintiff complains. l therefore
dissent"
Justice Morgan concurred in the
dissenting opinion of Judge WHY.
In expressing his concurrence, he
says:
II think that title to an office is a
proper matter for judicial inquiry
and that the courts Of the State
should be, and by the constitution
are open for the trial of such issues.
| think that the Superior District
Court had jurisdiction over the mat.
tiers in controversy between the par.
ties, and that the suit should have
been proceeded with. I therefore
think that the case should be
remanded."