The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-02-08
THE RETURNING BOARD WRTrs.
JUSTICE BnADIEr's REeIsIoNs AHE
MADE.


has beet, kept secret.
The court
DENIES THE APPLICATION.
i stThe court says THAI 10 entitle the petition
nfH To the removal sought fUr, their petition
ought tu show that the prosecution against
IIsat 4 81 The Tinted states under the pro
visluna III title xxvt OF on account u sotna
fisht, lille Oh authority claimed by them tna
der any Of said pfuylslpnsy referring. to Sec
hon g4a Of the Nesised. Statutes and others
relative to removal VI cases frotr, Stats. to
United States Courts. Hete, occurs . recital
OF aoine of The avefinetita Of the petiHon,l
The court proceeds. The claim that petit
tIoneIs IN acting az niembeis .f The Hel,,rnlng
board oil Louisiana, were officers OF the Uni
Ted States III reference 10 the election returns
of presidential electors,
+. 10 NOT THHABIiHl.
Thay were State officers lihdef State law,
and acting Under State authority The Claim
that the correctness Of theif RETURNS was adj
iti,ItAtsd BY The electoral commission Ia
equally uBtanabla. The electoral commission
declined to 20 behind the returns or 10 exam
Inc Tito thell correctness. II denied its luiis-
tilttiuil I'll do this These grounds Ut removal
are therefore
NOT FOUNDED ON FACT.
The ether grounds alleged namely that
returns IL based, were doteby the petitioners
III pursuance III the enforcement laws. is more
10 The purpose The difficulty liz an entire
want Of specification Of the acts referred tp.
This may bp owing to the fact that no speei-
tlcation 81 particular acts u made III the In
formation against Them The charge is sin,-
ply that of9alsely and felunionaly utterlng
and publishing az TRUE, false and forged re-
tiop fof presidential electors. What evidence
will be presented ID support Ut the charge
does not appear Il may have no respect 10
i the acts u tha petitioners done BY them IN
uhfsnailce u The acts of Uongfess. The
charge does not necessarily fiof ptesutnptive-
liz imply this. The petitioners can only con
lecture that Ii Will bs DO. II, many cases there
would not exist anv doubt as to the specific
acts complained Of, and the defendants would
have no diiilrulty Ii affirming the authority
under which they were done. A reyentie
t,ftiper milking seizure. for example. and be-
Ing prosecuted for taking the pariy's goods,
could, with reasonable certainty. affirm what
goods he vas charged with taking, and could
thotity by which be. did the aets complained
OF, and THUS be enabled to remove the cause to
the Federal court 30, u Ia ohstiieneee, to the
,a ahs t ae a ssG o. ssson re-
allowed TO Register ON account Of color. and Is
Indicted fot receiving unlawful votes. 10 wit .
the VOTES VI A, y. and @. specified by name, on
even withouts such specification he could very
properly affirm what particular acts he was
Indicted for, and could have no difficulty III
removing The eHtisa.s
But III the present case the charge Is for
publishing y false return 81. All election held
al d particular place. The defendants cannot
allege that the return was made under an act
of Congress-
fr WAS Nor.
But they suspect that 10 will be attempted to
make titlt against them the falsity charged,
by proving certain acts which they did Under
The enforcement act This, however, they can
hardly know with sufficient certainty ana II
they do knew IL, they have not specified the
acta OF claes Of aeta which they suppose TO be
the basis Of tho charge, 90 that the court may
one that is removable, It seems to me, there
fore, that no sufficient cause is presented for
d removal Of the cause. TO entitle
TO q removal the case. must be shown to be
within the category Of removable causes. The
general assertion Of the party that it - SO. OF
any general assertion that does not enable
the court TO see that 1t lie 30, is not sufficient
hut the petitioners are not without remedy.
If pn the trial 1t should be attempted to sus-
sain the charges by acts of the petitioners done
by them In pursuance ct acts Of Congress,
they can then claim the benefit Of those acts.
and II refused by the court, can carry their
case % the Supreme Court 81 the United States
by writ of error.
The application must be denied.
Tsse writ Of Certicrari.
Yesterday there was also filed III the Circuit
Sst Asag sop Mad 81 w Ws ss e. ssasye s sn
Louis Ill. Kenher, members OF Tho Returning
Board, together with the decision, also, OF
Judge Bradley In the matter, which was re-
ceived BY mail on Wednesday, by Mr.. Woolf-
ley. the clerk uf the court.
The petition is an application for q writ of
certIoraIl to be addressed to tho Superior
Criminal Court Of this city, and, like the
application for writ Of habeas corpus rela-
Returning Board involving q removal Of
the case 10 The United States court The
reasons given by Justice Bradley tsitting In
Washington cover the averments contained
III the petition.
THE REASONS
The court inquiries, frat, whether the mere
presentation OF the petition is sufficient TO
arrest the jurisdiction of the State court; II
tho court had the right 10 examine into the
auifiieney of the application whether the
came, and, II found sufficient. TO issue the
writ of certiorari. Does the petition in this
ease present sufficient ground for removing
the cauaeg g.
The i.st and second questions must be an,
swered IN the affirmative o
The State court IL not bound 70 shut its eyes
and yield to every application that comes to
1t, Though removal when authorzedD Is q
matter Of right and NOT Of favor, vet the court
n,iat have the right to see whether the appli-
cation to remove comes within the meaning of
the law. have no doubt, however, that the
Circuit Court by virtue of its superior right
To try the cause NJ SUBJECT 10 removan IL Gu
titled
no ASSERT IRIS JURISDICTION
by proper process directed TO the State court.
This view Is eorrohorated by certain express
provisions of the Statutes section 716l United
States courts may issue all wrlts which may
be necessary for the exercise of their respect
i've jurisdiction. and agreeable to the usages
and principles Of law. Section 642 provides
that il the defendant be in actual custody on
process issued by the State court, and have
performed all the acts necessary to q removal
Of his cause, the clerk Of the court is author
tied TO issue q hubeas corpus cum er'tsd,
which the marshal OF the United States is au-
thorized To serve by taking the body Of the
defendant into his custody. to be dealt with in
the Circuit Court according to law and the
orders of said court or, In vacation. OF any
Judge thereof
THIS rs THE PROPER WRIT
for removing both the cause and the
person in such ease. or course the writ
should not be opened by the clerk without be-
ing allowed by Judge of the court.
think. therefore, that the Circuit Court