New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-06-29
THE COURTS.

The following is the decision OF Judge
Cooley in the Caro- habeas corpus case:
In arriving at a conclusion in this case, l
differ entirely with both counsel-that is to
say, don't take into consideration the points
made on either side. l intend to decide it
on another point. That point is clear. l
have no doubt in my mind about it. from the
fact that results from piece OF my own
work in the convention of 1868.
It will be recollected by many persons
probably by every one now in this room
that in the winter of 1868, while the conven-
ton was in session, certain proceedings we're
had before one of the Recorders in this
CITY. which resulted in the incarceration
of q certain woman, think called Mrs.
Gardner, who was temporarily domlclled IN
the city of New Orleans. but resident OF
the parish of either East or West Baton
Rouge. If l am not mistaken, 1t was Re
eorder Gastinel who took it upon himself to
try her for the crime Of larceny, and con-
yicted and sent her to the parish Jail, for
which he made out commitment; and she
was incarcerated under that commitment
but released short time subsequently.
That was gross outrage, and deserved the
severest punishment.
After consulting with several members of
the bar of the city of New Orleans, in rela'
ton to the matter, saw there was some
difference of opinion among the legal gen.
tlemen in relation to the power OF Recorders
in such cases, and | made up my mind that
for the future there would be no such diff
ference of opinion, and l put 1t down so
plain in the constitution, that for the future
the repetition of such an outrage would De
attended with serious consequences to the
officer who should perpetrate it.
Therefore, after the whole judiciary de-
partment of the constitution was drawn up,
7 fol O..
which was unanimously adopted, with some
slight alterations from the original draft. l
now read from article ninety.four OF the
constitution of 1868:
"No judicial powers, except as commit
ting magistrates in criminal cases, shall DE
conferred on any officers other than those
mentioned in this title, except such as may
be necessary in towns and cities; and the
ludicial powers of such officers shall not
extend further than the cognizance of cases
arising under the police regulations OF
towns and cities in the State"
The offense with which this man is
charged is q State offense, 1t 1t be an
offepse at all. Vagrancv is not an onense
under the laws or ordinances OF TINS city.
It is a State offense, and the determination
of the guilt or innocence OF party accused
of such an offense is Judicial question,
and can not, by any act OF the Legisia.ure,
mentioned in the judiciary department,
section four'of the constitution. Therelore,
it is perfectly immaterial to me what may
have been the intention OF the Legislature
in re-enacting, in Rays Revised Statutes,
the act of 1856. The act of 1850, passed
under the constitution of 1852. might
possibly have been maintained. don't say
It could be, but it might have been.
There was under the constitution OF 1857
no Limitation upon the power of the Legis.
lature to confer judicial functions. That