Feliciana sentinel. [volume] (St. Francisville, La.) 1877-1892, 1877-12-15

highest legal authority. The judicia
power in Louisiana Is exclusively cor
fined by the State Constitution to certai
enumersted courts, and the Returnin
Board is not one of them. Therefore, Al
act of the Legislature which gives t.
such board any judicial power to pun
lsh any person tor any offence, is clearl,
void. But, in addition to this, it is pro
vided by the fundamental law Of all fre
ates, including Louisiana, that eve1
the cturts OF magistrates carabls df hol
ding this power shall never exercise i
| except OH formal accusation and due con
vlction, at Regular trial before an i'm
partial jury. Now, tho Legislative ac
which you assert to be constitutions
gives the power to punish by disfran
chisemeut to the Returning Board, which
is not d court, :.and authorizes it to pro
nounce sentence of Acknowledgement up
On all the citizens Of q parish at once, fol
an act OF violence not committed by
themselves or by any Of them, but by
somebody else whom they may neve,
have seen or heard Of. Even the fact
that violence was committed by other
parties is to be ascertained, not bv a
trial, but by All inquiry conducted in Sc
secret, behind tile back of che parties, on
ex parte statements Of their political enc
mics. The seEtencc is GO be carried re-
morselessly out though it have tie etf ect
OF remanding the whole people OF the
whole State back to hopeless bondage
tom which they are struggling to be
free.
Such a law you declare to be constitu-
tional and valid! There is not a half
grown hoy in the country of average un-
derstanding that does not know better.
c''i,not help but belle We that little re-
Election would have saved even you from
the shame and folly Of making AN asser-
tion 80 destitute of all sense and reason.
But you go further. You hot only aver
that the power of the Legislature to pass
such law cannot be doubted, but you
declare that the Supreme Court of Louis
lana has adjudged it to ,e valid, that is
to say, consistent with the constitution.
This is extremely ipj urious to that court,
;iad, if believed, it would destroy all conf
dence in the integrity of its judgments.
Knowing something of its members, Itake
leave to say tina. they are utterly incapa-
ble of making decision ct once so false
and 30 absurd. In fact, they did not.
No case ever came before them involving
the question, and no dictum
ever fell from either of them which
could give the Returning Board or it's
owners the least hope of being sustained
rs a constitutional body.
FALsIFIED DECISION.
This Justification of a judicial decision
TO uphold the power of the Returning
Board in fabricating election returns has
= curious history. In November last,
Mr. Stanley Mathews, in a published let
ter, said that the Supreme Court of tn
State had decided tho Returning Board
statute to be constitutional. He was
Immediately picked up by nine Louisiana
lawyers, who told him in a printed pani-
phlet it was not true, and asked him
with great politeness to correct tie error.
He was silent. but the visiting commits
zee reasscrted in it's report substantial
y the same thing. Again it was met
with loud and emphatic contradiction.
Nsverthe less, Mr.. Sherman IN the SEN
tie afterward reaffirmed it. and
lad the temerity to bold up y book of
Louisiana reports, in which he said the
lecision would be found. Those who,
ior want of time or interest in the sub
ect, did not examine the report, were
II some sort compelled to believe what
was affirmed about it by Senator who
,rofessed to have carefully read it, and
II consequence tho reputation of the
louisiana court suffered severely for a
While. But the Misrepresentation soon
became known for what it really was,
Ind it was again thoroughly exposed. as
you. very well known. Now, after all
his, here are you at the same work !
gain, pare ding anew the citation prov ,
ii to be false half q dozen times. The |
'atient pertinacity of Pope's spider, re-
its web as often as it was
wept away, is the figure that fits your |
ase. l will not quote the lines lest |
hey offend you by their coarseness.
You transcribe u passage in which |
ou tell us thaU the court has decided the |
alidity of the statute; but you are Care
ul not to mention the case OF the look
rom which you take it; it is found, how
yer, in tie case of Bonner vs.. Lynch, on
age 29S of the 25th Annual. There is
OF in that passage, OF in that case, or in
hat book, one word that alludes in the
emotest manner to the constitutional
uestion or the power of the Legislature
} pass such Law. The case being ex-
mined shows thst no such point was