New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-29
RERTIN AND COOLEY.

almost impossible for us to tell tothel
| from which. Let us pull these two Gus.
toners to pieces, and see if it is possible
to determine which is the guilty party.
The thief, Berth, was sent to the Peni-
Tertiary, but some good Democrats got up
petition, signed Judge Abell's name to
it, together with other members of his
court, and presented it to Governor War
moth, praying for the pardon Of Berlin.
The petition stated that Berth had been
convicted on insufficient testimony, and
the jury had found o verdict for which it
could give no justifable reason. The pc
tition had Judge Abells Endorsement
upon it. On this showing the Governor
acted, and granted conditional pardon
to Berth. 1t was subsequently discovered
that the entire petition and Endorsement
was a forgery, whereupon the Governor
revoked the pardon, which was, by virtue
of law, conditional on the acquiescence of
the Senate. In the meantime, however,
Berth had been arrested on charge of
robbery, and had been sent to the First
District Court, with his bail bond fixed at
S25, 900, by Recorder Houghton. Before
Recorder Staes he had been tried and con-
victed as vagrant and had been COM
mitted to prison without the privilege of
bail. As the facts were fully established
that he did rob the safe of Mr. J. S. Clark
of some $4,000 worth of jewelry and
money, Recorder HOughton considered
that the bail bond would be reasonable if
it covered the amount OF the robbery.
Some people, however, among whom it is
well to class Judge Cooley, have an idea
that any bond is unreasonable which is
beyond the means of thief, and, there
fore, writ of habeas corpus was sued out
to suppress Recorder Houghton's very I'M
reasonable idea about the object of bonds
in this particular instance. In the case
of vagnncy, Recorder Staes reasonably
supposed that as vagrants are considered
to be men without friends or means,
they have no reasonable prospect of
giving bonds, and therefore he did
not offer the vagrant, Berth, an
opportunity to give bail. This ruling
seems to be equally unreasonable to the
class alluded to, Cooley included, and
accordingly another writ Of habeas corpus
was sued out before Cooley to reverse
Recorder Staes' action. 1t is hardly
necessary to state the fact, but in order
to keep our judicial record, Cooley re-
leased Berlin from the commitment
issued by Recorder Houghton, because
the bail was too high; and he released
Berlin from the commitment Of Recorder
Staes because the offer OF bail was not
made at all. So it will be seen that Ber-
tin is at large again, free to rob and loaf
just as usual.
The Bulletin first opened fire or Cooley
and Berth, and was Immediately sup
ported by the REPUBLICAN and, Times.
Cooley & Co. entered into an epistolary
explanation with the Bulletin, and that
vigilant sentinel at once snapped uni
forms and came out as the apologist Of
the Sixth District Judge ct ais. Cooley
& Co. declare tina. they, sitting and plead
ing as the Sixth District Court, have no
criminal jurisdiction, in the very face of
the fact that they have released one of the
most notorious criminals in the commu-
nifty from under criminal jurisdiction.
And they not only did this violence to the
honest people Of the city Of New Orleans,
without authority of law, but they weakly
defend their own interference by declar-
ing that the commitments were not only
onerous, but worthless. We say this was
weakly done, because it is constant prac-
tice in our criminal courts to amend de-
fective commitments where the prisoners
before the court. The object Of the law
is to hold offenders, and considerable lati-
tude is allowed in accepting Of amend
ments to presentments and to the plead
ings hereunder. In fact, the law declares
that form is not SO much a necessity as
substance, and where the presumption is
great and the prisoner in custody, the old
particularly Of the common law practice
has been set aside. Under this construc-
ton and mode of procedure Cooley action
should have sustained both the commit
ments before his court, and if he thought
the amount of bail demanded was too
great. to have reduced it.
But, says the irrepressible judge afore-
said, there was no one present to make
motion to reduce the bail or to fix it, and
thereupon he proceeded to sustain the
writs and release the prisoner. His
judgment, published er con-
trdctu in the Bulletin, maintains that he was
right in setting aside the commitments of
two conscientious Recorders in criminal
proceeding, although he affirms his entire
lack of criminal powers, and it defends
his neglect to amend these defective
papers, when it was entirely within the
scope of his powers to do SO on his own
motion. 1t will thus be seen that he
usurps authority; that he undoes what
two honest officers have done; and that
he refuses to move in his own court to
save society from the plague Of thieves
and Migrants.
Without discussing the abstract ques-
tons Of excessive bail, Or the right of
Migrants to enjoy bail, it seems to us that
the public will feel as we do, that the
general r11le on that S,1hiect MIGHT wall he