New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-18
JUDGE ABELL'S OPINION.

1t is doubtless fresh in the memory o
: everybody that under the repeating claus
Of the revised statutes of 1870, which wen
into effect on the first of April, Judge
; Abel, of the Criminal Court, and the Dis
trjct Attorney both took very favorable
view of the law for the criminals who
have been indicted under the laws in ex
istence previous to the adoption of the re.
vised statutes of 1870 A number of nolt
prosequi were entered by the District
Attorney, and the prisoners discharged by
the Judge, on the ground, we understand
that the repeating clause above referred to
had worked legislative pardon, and they
were beyond the reach of further prosecu.
| ton through the courts. This hasty course
startled the whole community, from which
they, however, soon recovered on seeing
this action arrested by the court and Off
GERS themselves until the matter could be
finally passed upon by the Supreme Court.
The case of the State VS.. Brewer was
pending on appeal to the Supreme Court
from verdict and judgment of the Dis
trict Court for the parish of Tensas, for
the crime of manslaughter. A motion
was made by the counsel of the accused
for the discharge of the prisoner on the
same grounds on which the First District
Court for the parish of Orleans had dis
charged few prisoners by noAe proseqoi.
The Supreme Court, through Mr.. Justice
Howe, held that the prisoner. could not be
discharged on this plea, because the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court of the State,
made prior to the enactment of the re-
| vised statutes of 1870 had settled differ
ent doctrine to that commended for by the
prisoners counsel, that the repeating
clause of the act of 1870 was evidently
made in view of this long current Of deci-
sions, and the rule stan decidis must APP
ply.
Mr.. Chief Justice Ludeling rendered
concurring opinion in the same case,
somewhat enlarging on the views ex-
pressed by Mr.. Justice Howe. On Satur-
day last Judge Abel delivered himself of
long and disconnected harangue in the case
of the State VS.. Quintero, on an application
to be discharged from custody on the same
ground, to wit: That the repeating clause
Of the revised statutes of 1870, had |
destroyed the prosecution as well as the
crime for which the accused was held in
custody. We need not tell our readers
that this opinion of Judge Abel is adverse
to that of the Supreme Court, previously
rendered in the case of the State VS..
Brewer. He again (and after the decision
of the Court of last resort has been pro-
favors the side of the criminal.
The judge groups together great many
from this and other countries
On the effect of repeating statute without
saving clause. and puts in a lusty plea
n favor of the discharge of Quintero and
others, in custody for the commission of
crimes. Strange to say, however, Judge
Abel fails to cite single authority on
which Mr.. Justice Howe decided the case
VI the State VS.. Brewer. AS the Supreme
J0urt is admitted by Judge Abel to be
he proper tribunal to construe laws, we
10 not propose to enter upon the task of
the relative merits or soundness
# these decisions, the one by the Supreme
,ourt and the other by the Judge of the
'irst District Court. But to our mind it J
5 quite plain the Supreme Court has not
AIKEN sides in the controversy, while it is 8
qnally clear that the Judge of the Crimi- J,
al Court has. Had this decision in the j
.uintero case been rendered before that !
f the Supreme Court in the case of
rewer, the Judge would not probably +
ave been liable to this accusation, but as =
was not, there seems to be no loop-hole
rough which he can escape. .
This community has not forgotten, nor Il
ill it soon forget many of the singular a.
nd unwarranted rulings of Judge Abel. Ii
Instances are not wanting, nor are L
ey few, in which this Judge has a
eilded the Judicial power incident to his fl
osition in the interests of crime, and in :,
fielding malefactors from punishment. 81
e can not admit the sincerity of the CT
ldge when he says, if the decision of CT CT
e Supreme Court is law, he will cheer
lily submit to it. If he honestly means ~
wishes to obey the decision of the Su-
enc Court On the construction of laws, 81
~ does he exhibit so much indecent
ste, and labor 30 bard to show that the
cision of the Supreme Court against ~
miDals is not good law? In the inter- of
of peace and the good order of socie- Ia
and to that end the rigid enforcement la
the law against criminals, we call upon til
9 public to scrutinize closely the acts III
d motives of those whose duty it is to W
the law, in order that all male I'll
tors may not 60 unwhipped of justice. sh
--------- as
SMALLPOX BURIALS FOL
On Sunday, drums, not muffled. were