New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1869-05-23
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
The Metropolitan Police Act Again
Sustained.

mas en)OlneQ the Board OF MeIrOpOllbau
Police from disCharging police duty within
the limits of their corporation, alleging that
said Board, without the color Of right,
justice or law, has assumed the administra-
tion OF the police Of that city, preventing, by
threats and violence, the policemen appoint
ed by them from acting in their capacity.
They also allege that the act organizing
the Metropolitan Police District and pro-
viding for the government thereof is un-
constitutional in various respects.
The defendant moved to dissolve the in
junction on the following grounds:
l. That the injunction was issued without
any warrant or authority Of law
2. That the. corporation of Carrollton
withdrew their police force then on duty
under its charter, and allowed the force Or
ganized under the Metropolitan Police law
to take charge and police said city.
3. That the Metropolitan police act au-
thorized the defendant to control the police
of Carrollton, and it repealed that part of
its charter inconsistent herewith.
The court sustained the motion and dis
solved the injunction. ..,
The right to administer their police was
conferred on the plaintiffs by an act TO in
corporate the city Of Carrollton, approved
March II, 1853, the eighth section thereof
providing, that in addition to other duties
therein laid down, the Mayor of said city
shall superintend the police thereof" etc.
The corporation only derived its author
| ity from the Legislature; it is the creature
| thereof, and has no powers over the police
| eyceut such as the law COpfers.
The act of September IA, 1868, establish
| ing Metropolitan district and providing
| for the government thereof, embraces the
| city of Carrollton within the police district
| and confers on the defendant full powers te
| administer the police throughout the dis
| trict; it also repeals all laws in conflict with
the provisions thereof, aud took effect aftel
| its passage.
Then what right have plaintiffs to claim
| the jurisdiction or the control of the police
| OF Carrollton2
All their powers over the subject matter
have been withdrawn by the same authority
which conferred them, and which gave life
to the corporation Itself.
Having no powers themselves to supervise
the police of their city, what interest have
| they in testing the constitutiOnality of the
provisions of the act which do not COncerl
themselves!
They say the act complained of confer
judicial powers ou the Metropolitan Polic
Board, in violation of seYenty-third articli
of the Constitution; that ii violates the nintl
article, which protects the rights of tn
| people to be secure in their property; tia
It intlcts strange and unusual penalties
that it coufers powers in said Board to tai
the people of CarroltOn: that it provide
for the holding Of an office and the payin.
OF a salary to person who already hold
| the Office of Lieutenant Governor, in viola
I r,t 4f111 Z 81 fR-g
ton; that it violates article llj by referring
to various acts; that many of its provision
are contrary to and inconsistent with it
title in contraventlon of article ia of III
Z the Constitution; and that it violates tn
Constitution Of the United States.
Assuming that some of its provisions d
t conflict with the Constitution, does the &C
7 | violate any Of the constitutional rights
: the plaintiffs?
g Does it impose tax upon the corpora
2 tion, infringe upon their rights Of propert,
? or authorize the exercise OF Judicial power
2 | by said Board toward them?
II the act subjects the people of Carol
l. ton TO unjust taxation, and the strange al
. | unusual punishment complained of, tht
have 3 remedy through the courts by whil
= to avert the Infringement Of their COnstitg
tional rights.
In all these matters the corporation
j. CarrolltOn, in the opinion of the Court
without interest; it is not affected by any
r the provisions of the act which they S,
V violate the articles OF the Constitution
} this State and of the United States.
y This Court can not entertain q
g | stract questions of law presented by pa
, ties without interest, and wholly unatfect
/, by the illegalities and unconstitutionaliu
- complained of
y whether the title of the act is sufficient
l. comprehensive to embrace all its pro-
sions is immateTial; it is certainly bro
enough to cover the provision making Ca
e rollton q part of the police district, al
e also the provisions Withdrawing poi
q | powers from the corporation OF Carrollto
and conferrlng the same on the defendaI
'e the Board of Metropolitan Police.
Jr The provisions, at least OF the act dive
,e ing the plaintiffs, and investing the defen
ant with police powers, are not Violatiye
article ia Of the Constitution, and that
l. the only interest plaintiffs can have in ra
p- ing a constitutional objection.
ir In Diamond vs.. Cain, lately decided, whit
the same constitutional questions we're pl
= sented, this court held that Diamond v
without interest to enjoin the Superi
r. tendent of the Metropolitan Pol
q from the discharge of the functions
his Office; and that if he had sufficient
ae terest TO inquire into the constitutional
en- | of the provisions complained of, and ever
they should be held to be uneonstltution
as slleged, that would not render the
NC ance of the act unconstitutional.
de We now undertake to pass upon the C
tie stitutionality of the act in question, only
or far as the same is presented properly by
issues of this case.
n So far as that act affects plaintiffs orscC
Germs their interest we are decidedly
re opinion that it is constitutional.
- We think it constitutlonally divests
VI plaintiffs of all police powers, and conf
N. the same upon the Board of MetropolI
or Police.
h We think, therefore, that the plainti
were wholly without interest in the matt
er complained Of; that they enjOined the
of fendant without any warrant or author
g of law, and that the District Judge did
\ err in maintaining the motion to dissolve
W. II is therefore ordered that the judgm
e. be affirmed with costs. m
y" Can a White Man Legally AeknovvIe,
as' His Children by IA Colored WOmai
N CasnnHve vs. BIngammn,
= Supreme Court of Louisiana-St. FL
AZ Casanave, administrator, VS.. Adam L. Bi
te, aman-Appeal from the Second Dist
of Court of New Orleans. Justice Taliate
-. delivered the opinion of the court
The plaintiff, as administrator Of the 81
ne cession of James Adam Williams, sues
ed get possession Of the property Of the est
nv which he alleges is illegally withheld fr
= him by the defendant. The answer is Il
the defendant is the natural father of
Ie, decedent and his sole heir, and as such
70. been duly recognized and put in possess
OF thesuecessioh.
The facts appear to be that james Ad
u Williams, or, as otherwise named, Jan
to Adam Bingaman, was one of three nstu
children who survived their mother, Mi
- Ellen Williams, free woman Of color,
u died in Adams county, Mississippi In
sh vember, 1861. She bequeathed Q,
nd siderable amount Of properly 70 y