The Louisianian. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1870-1871, 1871-02-05

dicld powers, to try the offender am,
denim him to pay the fine established nv ,h
first section. This is manifestly unlavfu,
These parish recorders are officers whose a.
ty 1t IS to take charge of certain reco,l.
chiefly of real estate, and they can no mo,,
be made to hold court than can the COLL.
tors of taxes.
But again the recorders Of New Or,s.,.
are included in the grant Of judicial DOVE,
made in the second section of the hill .,s
are to pass finally upon the rights of the a.
cused to the extent of the fine imposed hv
section one This is evidently illegal, as will
appear by reading article ninety-four Of tbs
constitution. Its unlawful for the Lecisl,.
ture TO confer any Judicial powers, except ga
committing magistrates, upon any but the
judges and justices named in the copst;,u
ton.
These are not my opinions merely. They
are a statement of our jurisprudence In tba
case of Lafon vs. Dufrocq, decided by our
Supreme Court in 1854 q Ann. p. 35O). il
appeared that the Legislature had attenptd
to confer judicial powers on the Mayor Of
Baton Rouge, and the court was unanimou.
in holding that it could not be done upde,
an article similarto the one in the constin.
ton of 1865, which vested Judicial power in
the Supreme Court, in district courts and in
justices of the peace. In the case of Nlaguire
vs. Hughes, ID Ann. 2S1, the case of Lafou
was limited and explained, but it was still
held that the Legislature could not confer
Judicial powers upon any officers except su.
preme, and inferior judges and justices Of
the peace. These decisions were made in the
bsence of such an express article as ninet,n
afour of our present constitution, and
general principles.
Still more: with the article ninety-four
staring us in the face, we had to pause be.
fore passing such bill as the one herewith
returned.
may also observe that the article ninety
four imposes severe penalty on the officer,
other than Judge or justice, who shall at
tempt to exercise any judicial powers beyond
those of committing magistrates In this
regard the lii is pernicious, for it imposes
a duty on police commissioners, city rrcor-
ders and parish recorders, in such way.
that If they discharge it they are liable to
lose their Offices by the verdict ola jury in
favor of any person concerning himself az
grieved. We ought not to put these officers
thus between two fires.
Second-The bill violates the provisions Of
article six of the constitution, which declares
that prosecutions shall bc by Indictment or
| information and that the accused shall be
in all eases, entitled to trial l,y jury. II is
evident that in the plan Of action proposed
by the bill there il no opportunity for an in
dictment or information. The accused is not
to b. appraised with legal accuracy of the m
tire and circumstances Of the offcnse with
which he is charged, nor is it to Ike 81 des-
c1ibcd that record may be kept which will
prevent him from being tried twice for the
same o.fense. Nor is there any provision for
a Jury. The Justice of the peace can not sum-
mon Jury. There is no law for that. The
city recorders and parish recorders ore, il
possible, still more powerless in this direc'
ton.
1t seems clear, then, that the Legislature
have inadvertently passed bill which seeks
to deprive the prisoner of the right OF bell 6
legally informed Of his offense, and OF benz
tried by jury.
Third-The bill violates those provisions
of articles six, seven, eight, nine and ten
| which declare that the accused shall he emit
tied to speedy trial, and that he shall he en-
titled to give bail, except in capital cases
The violation is plain. The Police Commis.
sioner may arrest and confne the accused
(who is merely accused, and presumed to Do
| innocent) for forty-eight hours. This Is IN
itself a severe punishment. 1t = penod
twice as long as that for which an attorne!
NAV be confined for the grnvest contempt"
court. The accused may then be brought up
to trial, still without bail, and in the mean
time his establishment, NO matter how Cost
" or profitable, may be kept closed. Sup
pose it then appears that he is innocent
that the person alleged to have been e1clu'
ded on account of his color had really been
refused admittance because he was no'o'
rious thief there are such Of all eolors''
how could such damage be repaired . bow
could such tyranny be excused
FOURTH object to this bill for the tut
Their reason that it is an attempt to enioN'
civil rights by means of criminal procedure