The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-04-10
CONTESTED ELECTIONS In LOUISIANA
Decision of the Supreme Court Rendered
ON May Is. 1876.

Decision of the Supreme Court Rendered
ON May Is, 1876.
State Of Louisiana, OK relatioue j. g. Mopcure
w. Antoine Dubuelet-Appealf from the Superior
District Court. parish OF Orleans.
Mr.. Justice Tsliaferro:
1he plaintiff alleges that at tho general State
election, on the ID OF November, 1874, he whs
elected Treasurer Of the State Of Louisiana, hay
ing received large majority OF tho votes cast BY
the legal voters Of the State; that the defendant
was his competitor and was illegally returned as
duly elected to the said Office by the Returning
Board OF elections, composed OF j. Madison Wella,
President Thomas q. Anderson, Louis M. hen-
ner and q. Dasauaye; the relator avbrr1nR that
be resolved on tho entire vote OF the State ma
iority OF more than three thousand votes over MS
competitor. He alleges specially that the Re-
turning Board refused to count and did not count
three votes obtained by him In the parish OF
De ,oto. That the said board did, contrary to
law. refuse to count any returns at gil from the
parishes of DeSoto, Grant and Winn That
the aggregate vote OF these parishes wes
forty-suven hundred for relator and six hundred
aud hixsy.seven for Antoine Dubulclet, being
twenty one hundred and eighty majority 1n favor
OF the felator, OF which he was deprived He spe.
cities various other acts of the Returning Board
in G mpilng the returns OF tho election, and iii
making out ther estimates OF the results OF the
election In the different parishes, which no
charges to have been irregular and illegal, ana
redouudipg to his Ii jury as cabd1date Tor ths
office of Treasurer. he relaior prays service OF
pe tition and citation IN Antoine Dubuoet, and
he prays that writ OF mandamu8 Issue to tho
members Of the Returning Board commanding
them TO assemble aud CANVASS the returns OF the
afore said parishes, viz: Benville, DeSoto, Grant
and Winn, and promu gate the same. That upon
the other tissues set forth h jury be called TO do
termine them; that there bs Judgment in his
fsv r dec airing that the commission issued to
Antoine Duuuclet ~ Treasurer was impr0vident-
ia af fatA
Treasurer that reator be decreed to have received
a majority Of three thousand eight hundred
and seventy-six OF the votes legally poiled
throughout the State at the election aforesaid for
the vfhce of Treasurer OF the State, and there
fore TO be entitled to the said Office.
rule nisi was issued TO the officers OF the Re
turung Board, who responded to the orGer by
excsption on these grounds:
First-That there is in the realtors suit an i'm
proper joinder OF parties and an improper eumu-
lntion OF different causes OF action.
Seeond--That there il no cause OF action set
up by REALTORS petition against these respond
ents.
1hird-Thst there is u commineling OF allega-
tions in the petition, leaving it doubtful what
cause of action the relator seeks to prosecute,
the petition being vague and uncertain.
Fourth--That il the object be TO contest the
ele ctlon OF Antoine Dubuelet, the respondents
have no interest Ia the contest. That the court
is without jurisdiction ration ntdtertd that the
law does not authorize the c. ntestation OF the
election OF State Treasurer, ind, II 1t did, which
IL d MED, the action Il prescribed by ten days.
Fifth That there is no CAUSE OF action against
these respondents, whatever may be the suit;
that courts are without jurisdiction to inquire
into their action as Heturnipg Board or to pre-
scribe their course OF action; thai tho law pre-
Bcribes their duties and their acts are limited by
their sound discretion under the law and their
| findings are not subje to review by any court
| The respondents. in tbeir answer, sworn to by
| the President OF the board, declare that they
- ttr.r
Returning Board on the 11th of Novemb r, 1874.
aud completed their work on the 2Ath OF Decem-
Der following, and promulgated the same
| accor ing TO law; that they have become
| fu1ctus ottcio and have no further legal
authority in tbs premises; that their
action is final and no mandamns will lie
| against them. The answer then declares that in
relation to the parish of De4oto no legal return
of the election IN tnat parish was made TO the Ee-
| turning officers by the Supervisor OF Registra-
tioa, and, consequently, they were without
means to CANVASS, count and compile the votes OF
that parish ii any election was held in 1T. That
| in regard to the parish OF WinD, there was evi-
demos before the Returning Be ard that there was
no supervisor Of registration in that parish to
register the voters and to conduct he election
and that there was no legal election held in that
parish on the I'd OF November, 1874.
| Concerning the parishes OF Bienvile and
Grant, the evidence bt fore the Returning Board
showed that at no poll or place OF voting IN either
OF these parishes was there full. fair and peace
| able election on account OF acts vi violence, In
| timidatlon and corrupt influence, such as to ma
terially interfere with the freedom and purity OF
eections; and consequently upon taking testi-
mony Of Witnesses to ascer ain the facts in rela-
ton to these matters, and ascerta'ning that such
n condition OF things did exist as stated, the
| returning tfficers In conformity with law. re-
iected the several polls from these parishes"
| On the part Of Dabucet al exception Vas filed,
containing in substance the same matters set mp
in the exception OF the officers OF the Returning
pa.ul tIrp Hat 4
lator's cause Of action is one under tho intrusion
act then the petition sets forth no munimeni
OF title in the efator Moncure) whicn authorizes
proceedings under that act That in relator'f
petition no cause OF action is set up.
| By the Judgment OF the court qua the excep
tions were sustained, the mandamas prayed to1
refused, aud the suit dismissed.
] he relator appealed.
We think the exceptions were properly sus-
tained and the Judgment Diminishing the case cor
rectly rendered. The contrasting OF an election
must necessarily be conducted in conformity with
some law authorizing it. Under what law does
the relator proceed? If it be under the act o
1855, We do not think lis provisions apply to hli
case. BY that act provision is made for contesa
tions OF elections held for parish and ward ofh
GERS only, aud summary proceedings are required
The contestant must. within ten days after the
election, present to the court petition, slgnet
BY at least twenty voters Of the parish praying
the court to examine the facts and decide thereon
The adverse party is required to answer aftel
ten days from service Of petition, and the ISSUE
to be proceeded with summar.ly before jury
The jury is authorized to decide which OF tht
parties is entitled to the Office or tt
return the matter to the people for {
new election. No new trial or appeal ii
allowed. This is the only law founo on oul
statute that authorizes courts to go into tht
business Of inquiriug into and determining The
qualifications Of voters, the correction OF pol
books, rejecting votes found to be illegal, cor
recting and compiling returns Of elections. ques
slaI 81 4IxNvr .In fiy,f
and place OF holding elections, adjusting the re-
ports Of commissioners Of elections, and gener
ally all the details relating to the proceedings re
qulred in the holding Of elections. And this Law
applies specially to the election Of parish al q
ward officers II this act Of 1855 applies TO the
Gu se a. bar which we by no means admit, all its
provisions would apply. Then the pre- tcrlption O
ten ,ys would be fatal to the realtors case, fol
| oRt - Ior n