Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1877-11-21

Q States, including Louisiana, lhat eve
r the courts or magistrates capable O
: holding this power shall never cxcI
else it except upon formal accusation
0 and due conviction, after regula
c trial before an impartial jury Nov
Q the legislative act which you assert h
4 be constitutional gives tho power L
/ punish by disiranchisemont to the re
. turning board, which is not court
+ and authorizes it to pronounce sen
, tenco OF disfranchisemont upon all thl
! citizens Of parish AT once, for an &C
: of violence not committed by them
selves or by any OF them, but by some
, body else whom they may never have
seen or heard OF. Even the fact tha
violence was committed by other par
ties is to be ascertained, not by trial
but by inquiry conducted in secret
behind the backs of the parties, on er
pdi1e statements Of their political enc
mics The sentence is TO be carried
; remorselessly out ,thoughait have th,
effect of remanding the whole people
OF the State back to hopeless bond
age from which they are struggling tC
be free.
Such law you declare to be con.
stitutional and valid There is not a
halfgrown boy in the country of av-
cragc understanding that does not
know better. ! cannot help but be-
heve that little reflection would have
saved even you from the shame and
folly OF making an assertion so desti-
tute Of all sense and reason.
But you 90 further. You not only
aver that the power Of the Legisla-
turc to pass such law cannot be
doubted, but you declare that the Su-
premc Court of Louisiana has adiudg-
ed il to be valid, that is to say, con
sistent with the Constitution, This is
extremely injurious to that court, and
believed, it would destroy all conf
dencc in the integrity of its judgments.
Knowing something of its members, /
take leave to say that they are utter
ly incapable of making a decision at
once so falsely and SO absurd. In fact
they did not. No case ever came be-
fore them involving the question, and
no dictum ever fell from either of them
which could give the returning board
or its owners the least hope Of being
sustained as a constitutional body.
This Justification of n judicial dccis-
ion TO uphold the power Of the return.
ing board in fabrioating election re-
turns has a curious history. In No.
vcmber last Mr.. Stanley Matthews. in
a letter, said that the Supreme Court
of the State had decided the returning
board statute to be constitutional. lie
was Immediately picked up by nine
Louisiana lawyers, who told him in
printed pamphlet that it was not true,
and asked him with great politeness
to correct the error. He was silent,
but the visiting committee reasserted
in its report substantially the same
thing. Again il was met with loud
and emphatic contradiction. Never.
theess, Mr.. Sherman in the Senate af
terwards reafiirmed it and had the
temerty to hold up book Of Louisi.
ana reports in which he said the do
cision would be found. Those who
for want Of time or interest in the sub
iect did not examine the report were
in some sort compelled to believe what
was affirmed about il by Senator
who proiesscd to have carefully read
il, and in consequence the reputation
of tho Louisiana Court suffered Sc
vorcly for a while, But the misreprc.
sentation soon became known for What
1t really was, and it was again thor.
oughly exposed as you very well know.
Now, after all this, here you are at
the same work again, parading anew
the citation proven TO be false half a
dozen times. The patient pertinacty
of Pope's spider, reconstructing its web
as often as it was swept away, is tho
figure that fits your case ! will not
quote the lines lest they offend you by
their coarseness.
You trauscrbe passage in which
you tell us that the court has decided
the validity OF the statute butyou are
careful not to mention the case or the
book from which you take it; it is
found, however in the case Of Bonner
vs. Lynch, on page PCS Of the 25th
annual. There is not in that passage
or in that case, or in that book, one
word that alludcs in the romotest man.
ner TO the constitutional question or
the power OF the Legislature TO pass
such law Tho case, being examln-
cd, shows that no such point was rails
ed by the record or discussed by coun-
sci or adiudicated by the court The
sole question was whether the court
had authority to revise the proceed.
ings of the returning board and cor.
rect its errors. Four Judges concur
red in the opinion that, inasmuch as
no statute expressly gave them that
power they could take no cognizance
of the subject, for want OF jurisdiction
rdiioue mdteriG You might Just as
well cite that case to provo the consti.
iutionalily Of the reconstruction law.
You claim that this same case not
only establishes the ralidRg of the act
creating the returning board, but the
conclusive effect Of its action where
as, in Truth and in fact, the court holds
the direct contrary, and says that a
certificate Of the board is merely prima
facie evidence in favor of the person
who gets it, How, indeed, could the
court have done otherwise, see
ing that that statute itself declares,
totidcm uerJis, that the certificate shall
be, not conclusive, but prnld Jdcic
merolv ? And here IL ouVht 10 be noted
~. ,sLo,o ,.o, ,,,.,c,ss 90 so, c,,.,t,
.n"' "uo'v yVu P,v'0s1 " ~ .oi ~,
.ne Pros's,o,, vi a., 'ne ,;aas' ,sS's,u'e9 Io nvo
WniNn "i"Ne' Wv 'it Nis'ilt".s " ~