The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1866-07-25
The Case Of Messrs. Joseph W
Texada and Archie Smith.

This case, says the New Orleans Crescent,
was argued on Thursday before United
States Commissioner Shannon, i'll the court /
room of the United States District Court. |
D. f. Haynes, who, during the war, was in
command of band of jayhawkers, and in
the service of the United States, in the
Parish of Rapides, complains that, in 1863,
he was assaulted and maltreated by Mr..
Smith; that in 1865 he was beaten by Cap,
tain Texada and that he has in vain ap-
pealed to the judicial authorities of the
Parish of Rapides to be allowed to prose
cute them Therefore he seeks redress
| from the Federal courts and claims that he
has the right to do SO under the Civil
Rights Bill"
No examination was had into the merits
of the charges, the commissioner combining
himself to an Investigation of the fact as
to whether the Civil Rights Bill applies to
the case.
For Haynes Mr.. A. P. Field appeared,
and the counsel of defendants were Messrs.
Fellows and Stewart.
The argument of the defense was that
the Civil Rights Bill offered redresss only
to parties litigant, not to witnesses. The
parties in the case, if it was a case, were
the State of Louisiana and Joseph Texada
and Archie Smith. 1t was assumed that
an assault had been made by Texada and
Smith upon Haynes. That was q violation
of the sovereign authority of the State Of
Louisiana, and the title of the case would
be "the State of Louisiana VS.. Texada and
Smith" Haynes was only a witness. He
was neither plaintiff nor defendant-nei-
ther prosecutor nor prosecuted, and could
not appear, under the law, complaining
that the State authorities would not do
him justice Upon the showing of Haynes
, if any one had violated the Civil Rights
! Bill it was the justice who had refused to
, receive his complaint, the Grand Jury who
had turned him away, the District Attor-
ney who would not file IN information, or
the Judge who declined to enforce the law
alleged to have been violated. The rar-
ties at bar had not denied redress to
$ Haynes, had in no manner or form violated
4 the Civil Rights Bill. Again, the act was
:, passed on the 9th of April, 1866, and there
was not scintilla of proof that the defen.
dants or anybody else had since the 9th
| APRIL 1866, contravened the law. This
: was the argument i'll regard to general jul
: risdiction. 1t was further argued that il
: the case was cogmzaDle by the Federal tri
!, bunals, it could not be held here, for, by
! the laws Of the United States, the State Of
Louisiana was divided into an eastern and
q northern Judicial district, and aparty &C
cused could only be held by the court il
his district, and tried by a jury of the vi
cinage. Counsel for Haynes was diied tt
;. show any violation whatever Of the Civil
Rights Rill.
Mr.. Field argued ct much length to SHOW
that the Civil Rights Bill had not the re
h stricted application counsel for defendant
d contended it had. He sought to demon
'e strate that an assault upon person, whic]
/ the local tribunals refused to take cogni
!, zance of, gave the party assailed the RICH
v to seek redress from the Federal tribunal
q, under the Civil Rights Bill. The rights Q
he person and the rights ofproperty were tn
er rights to be protected by law. IN thi
n case the rights of person had been invaded
IN The law Of the United States had not bee
ly violated, literally speaking, but the law c
I'd the State was not enforced and the Unite
10 States came in to compel it's enforcement
10 i 1t was true, the State Of Louisiana was
10 fiction Of law the party aggrieved, an
d Haynes was only a witness, but the part
It. really aggrieved was Haynes, and he pr
Il perly invoked the paramount law. b
~ sides, the State of Louisiana had abondol
IL ed the case. By the laws Of this Stat
- misdemeanors Of the kind sought to
punished could not be prosecuted after til
Of lapse of six months That time ha
ng elapsed The State therefore, could III
now appear. The United States came il
g, and with the State law would try the a
no cused party for a violation of that law.
=, Mr.. Stewart remarked that the argumel
or had been conducted in somewhat conve
ty sational style (Which it had-we hay
,h merely given an ontline) and although NJ
ne permitted by the regular rules OF pleadir
ne to say anything more, he would take I'll
al liberty of suggesting to the court.that Il
o. Federal tribunals trying man under IL
IN laws of the State of Louisiana, for.an 9
ed Tense against those laws, would certain
he be trespassing in seeking to punish par
er who, by the very law invoked against hin
" was already acquitted by prescription.
-, - The commissioner said he would not a
Ee tempt to determine these intricate la
he points. He would leave that determin
ed ti0n to the court above. He thereto
I'D sent the case before the United States d
g. trict court, fixing the bail of Mr.. Smith
~. ~ $3.50, and that of Captain Texada at $1,000
~ -&e~>S~
=; A FREEDMAN LOOKING UP HIS MASTER
~ The Journal of Commerce has the folio
Nv ing extract from a private letter from Del
pr. opolis, Ala, illustrating the new order
Ter things in the South y
Ill A huge freedman appeared at the door
re- the Office of the Freedmens Bureau he
ad one day last week, when tho following CT
ne loquy occurred:
tY 6 Il this tho hnrnan ~