New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-07-03

! error Was granted, but not to reverse II
! same and authorize these defendants to di
obey the Injunction, and to violate the la
| in question.
II ia true that when an appeal has bee
taken, and bond has been fled, the juri:
} diction of the appellate court attaches
once, and the inferior court has thereaft'
, no authority to take further proceedings
the cause. Nevertheless, it is within tn
power, and is clearly the duty of the Judg
below, to make such orders, and take sue
steps as may be necessary or proper to re
tain the object in dispute in the exact posi-
ton it occupied in relation to the partie
junction has been granted by the court below
and the defendant appeals from judgmeI
making the same perpetual, it is the duty {
the judge who granted the order to punish
by attachment, for contempt, any one VII,
violates the writ pending suspensive az
peal.
The appellate court neither excuses no
enforces the orders of the inferior court.
The propositions are fundamental, an,
would not now be stated had it not beeI
that counsel for the defendants indignantly
abandoned their case on hearing the rule
when the court suggested that such is tn
law.
The defendants in answer to the rule, fur
ther set up that the Attorney General Cal
not enforce this injunction. because the &C
OF the Legislature under which he is pro
ceeding is illegal" unconstitutional, nul
and void, because it violates the fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments to the constitu
ton of the United States, and the laws o.
Congress enacted to carry the said amend
ments into effect.
1t seems strange that counsel, Who have
been attorneys of record in this Case sill &C
its institution. should make such plea be-
fore this court and at this time. The un.
cOnstltutionality of the law In question was
the defense made by them when the case
was brought. The issue was deliberately
presented to the Supreme Court, and after
full argument and careful investigation, the
validity of the law was affirmed. Counsel
we'll know that said decision is bindin :
upon the court, and therefore that it is vain
to make such plea.
Another matter OF defense set up by coun-
sci for respondents in rule is that this court
is without jurisdiction to proceed further,
because on the twenty. first of June they
presented petition to this court, asking
that this rule be transferred for hearing to
the Circuit Court of the United States for
the District Of Louisiana. When this petit
ton was brought to the attention OF the
court it was ordered to be Withdrawn from
the files and returned to the counsel who
presented it, as containing matter improper
and insulting to the court. The petition
contained the allegation, 80 often repeated
in this controversy, that the statute, for the
enforcement of which this suit was brought,
violates the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution of the United States and con.
travenes the provisions of the act of Con-
gress known as the ''civil rights bill" Then,
with the mistaken suppositIon that the case
would be thereby brought within certain
provisions Of the law authorizing the trans
fer of particular cases from the State to the
United States courts, the counsel wrote that
the defendants, believing that their rights
could not be enforced, and would be denied
them in this court, and that they could not
obtain just and impartial decision upon
the questions set up.
Having anticipated the proceedings Of de-
PENDANTS counsel, now referred to-, the ac-
ton thereon was taken by the court after
mature elaboration and careful considera
ton OF the constitutional provision and of
the acts of Congress cited.
1t was found that the acts confer no juris-
dicti0n upon the Circuit Courts over cases
of this class. and, consequently, there WAS
no warrant for demanding the transfer.
1t was further urged that these proceed.
ings ought not to go on, because Mr.. Justice
Bradley, while sitting upon the bench CT the
Circuit Court of the United States, in this
city. recently entertained petition, ad-
dressed to him by these defendants, and
declared the statute under discussion vio-
lative of the fourteenth amendment afore-
said. 1t is said that should not proceed in
the face of this declaration. But the Cir
cult Court of the United States has no
power to interfere with the proceedings in
the Courts of the State. Therefore my duty
is clearly to follow the decision of the
Supreme Court of the State until it shall
have been reversed by the Supreme Court OF
the United States.
In concluding this matter, 1t may not be
improper for me to remark that the litiga-
ton. Of which this is q branch, has been
conducted upon one side in spirit OF bit
terness not to be accounted for, except on
supposition that the defendants really be-
Iieve the declarations of their counsel that
they will be deprived of the right to labor
tor living, instead of merely having that
est of the health, and for the benefit OF the
community. In the process of this contest
upon the part Of the State to maintain the
law there has occurred an unpleasant diff
ference between the State Court and the Uni
ted States Circuit Court sitting here. There.
upon, the cry was raised thatthe State court
was asserting the doctrine of State soyer-
eighty, ard defying the national authority.
1t is sufficient to say that the officers OF the
ton OF Louisiana, which declares the com.
plete and perfect subordination of the State
to the National government. The assertion
Of the judiciary of the State of the constltu-
tiOnal right of the local government to regu.
late its own police, to the exclusion OF the
interference of an inferior court OF the gem
eral government is not antagonistic to the
doctrine Of national suprem acy and State
With thouo considerations r,,eI oopc,uJo
that the defendants have shown no cause
why the rule to enforce the preliminary
Injunction herein should not be made abso-
lutte. But as it lie apparent that defendants
were acting under advice of counsel. no pun
Ishment for contempt will be inflicted. The
order will be entered as the iudg-
nent on the rule:
That the Sheriff be and he is hereby in
,tructed and required to enforce the prelim-
mary injunction issued herein. and to pre-
vent further violation of the same until the
hnal decision Of the Supreme Court of the
nited States, or the further order of this
court.
The clerk will at once furnish the Sheriff
with copy of the said writ aud of this order
Tor his guidance. Defendants to pay costs.
Supreme Court Of Louisiaan-The Jack
aon Railroad Case.
. u. I. Beauregard ct al. vs. H. s. Nc !
Cofno.-in this case John D. Freeman, of !
counsel for the old Beard of Directors of the |
JACKSON Railroad, presented, on the twenty |
eigtth OF June, to the Supreme Court, now |
sitting IN chambers in this city, an applica-
.ion for mandamus to compel Judge Did,
PIE 70 allow au appeal from the judgment of
'he Eighth District Court of the thirteenth
If June, in which it was decided that Nc. |
Jomb and the new Board of Directors were
iu'y elected to the Offices they now hold in
laid Jackson Railroad Company.
A majority Of the court, consisting of As.
ociate Justices Taliaierro, Howe aud Wyly,
we're present this morning. and indorsed the
Ipplication in these words:
This application is refused, the Supreme
;ourt having no jurisdiction. Const, at.