New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-11-25

/
or members Of the force for acts done in
the discharge of duty, or by color of Office
and also for the salaries and pay required
oy this act, and such other general and
contingent expenses rs may from time to
time, in the Judgment of such board of esti-
mate and apportionment, become necessary
or proper, with the enumeration thereof
Such estimate shall be accompanied with
q written apportionment BY said board
of the proportion of expenses applicable
to each OF the cities and parishes il
the metropolitan district, in ratio o
the number of police officers and meI
authorized by the act, and employed By
such cities and parishes respectively. The
SAID estimate and apportionment shall be
submitted to the Mayors of the cities and
Police Juries of the parishes within the
said metropolitan District to consider the
same; and if the said Mayors or Police Ju-
rles shall object in writing to such estimate
and appoItionment, or to any portion
thereof, and so notify or cause to be mott.
ned the said Board Of Commissioners, il
shall be the duty of the latter to carefully
revise the same and consider the said OBJ
lection; but if such Board shall adhere to
their original action of estimate and ap.
portlonment, or ii they shall modify the
same, then their action shall be final, and
shall be binding upon the respective cities
and towns interested therein.
The words are mandatory, and the
Mayors of the cities must obey the terms;
the corporations have no discretion under
the law. This is the point before the
court.
Judge Cooley" Upon whom shall the
| decision Of the ROar1 altar rannnaidara.
ton, be final ?"
Judge Hawkins" Upon the corpora
tons"
Judge Cooley" Well, the act don't say
| So"
Judge Hawkins, in answer to query by
Judge Cooley said that the act was to be
interpreted acco -ding to the whole Ian
guage thereof, and not by an examination
of particular phrases and clauses. The law
is binding.
Judge Cooley IF the act is mandatory,
as You describe it, why does not the act ex-
tend its mandatory powers over the whole
Slater"
Judge Hawkins said that their powers
were limited to men and limited TO terri
tory; that within that territory the law is
mandatory. Judge Hawkins continued the
NNP"SitJ VI 'ItSl PlNtNIg hOldlliS W Nut
theory that the act Invested the Mayor of
all power 10 appoint any police. In an
swer 10 the statement that the first act on
police divesting the Mayor of power to ap-
point the police was adopted before the
Constitutional amendment was acted upon.
h. said there was no evidence OF the fact
before the court.
Judge Cooley-"The journals of the
House will show it."
Judge Hawkins-"BGt we should have
opportunity to contradict it."
Judge Cooley-"What! Contradict the
journals of the House ~
Judge Hawkins-"Why is the journal of
the House has not been filed. has not been
produced? This is what should have been
done. The Judgment OF the Court can not
be based upon a mere informal statement.
The question of the const nationality has
nothing to do with the question before the
Court
Judge Cooley-"How is that? The
plaintiff claims that by law already in
torce-the city charter-the Mayor is vested
with the power to appoint the police,
and that he acts uuder the city charter.
But the defendant claims Office by subse-
queut act of the Legislature Under this
issue the plaintiff has the right to question
the constituionality of the acts of the Legis-
lature invoked"
Judge Hawkins-"This is a suit via quo
warranto-a narrow path. The plaintiff
is entitled to seek whatever remedy may
seem to him best, and he has selected this
one n this case. But the court can not
supply the plaintiff with allegations, nor
can the court, in quo warranto suit, ex-
anime into the constitutional of the law
under which either party acts'
Mr.. Alfred Phillips set the question
before the Court to be "whether the Metro
politan Police, established under the act,
was voluntary or forced institution: to
be binding upon the city only il it chose
to avail itself of its benefit" 1t appeared
to him that the act was voluntary on the
part of New Orleans whether to accept it
ornot The rights Of liberty and of prop
er;y were absolute-all other rights were
relative. All laws made in protection to
these absolute rights were police laws, and
governments without protection of these
powers could not exist. The power of
police was an essence of the sovereignty of
the city of New Orleans, and unless the
Legislature by special act or by clear or I'M
equivocal Luggage divests the city of the
power to manage its police, the power re-
mains and is sill resident in the city under
its charter. He maintained that the power
TO appoint and invest the police still re-
manned with the city, notwithstanding the
Police Act, and he held there was no inten-
tiOn expressed 10 the same-nothing in the
act to indicate the intention of the Legisla-
ture to divest the city of its power. Then,
if there IS no intention in the Legislature to
force he city to yield its power under the
charter, what standing has the defendant
Cain II the city still has its police
power, is it not to be presumed |
the Legislature did not intend to force
the city to yield its power, as that body
did not intend to Cypress, but enacted laws
to project the people. This voluntary
view OF the case is borne out by The act
itself The parishes were simply united
for police purposes. The metropolitan
powers are limiled to the calling ont of the
times of popular disturbance; ac-
cordlngly the Mayors oil New Orleans. JEFF
ferson City and Carrollton may act in
voluntary manner with the Board of Metro
politan Police, or may not act, as public
safety may require.
Upon these arguments the case was sub
mlled, aud it is reported decision may be
expected on Saturday. z i