New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-13
NEW ORLEANS REPUBLICAN, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 49, 1872

Mr.. McMillen inquired in what year these
contributions were made.
Mr.. Blackman-SOme in 1865.
Mr.. McMillen-WhO was Governor then !?
Mr.. observation-disclosures Allen.
Mr.. cMillen-Were there not two Gov
ernors!
Mr.. Blackman-Yes, there were two gov
ernments existing. 1 do not propose to
discuss the constitutional question as to
whether the government at New Orleans
was the only lawful and loyal government,
which it is now claimed it was, and which,
perhaps, it was. The very moment the
bavonet was Withdrawals; the very moment
there was no obstruction to the execution
of the laws the very moment the State of
Louisiana surrendered, that very moment
the legal and lawful government of Lou
isiana was in New Orleans, and that gov
eminent became the owner of all
the property belonging to the State
of Louisiana. If the position of the
gentleman is right, there was a
legal government i'll Louisiana in 1868, and
the State became the lawful owner Of this
property the very moment the cOnfederates
surrendered. This is not an extraordinary
demand; it is thing done by almost every
State government. The State of Louisiana
has as much right to make its claim as a
private individual has. Ii we can make out
our case, as | am informed we can, the ap-
pOintment of this committee will not cost
the State one cent. and may bring from
four to eight millions of dollars to the State
government. l therefore hope. in view OF
the facts l have stated that the Senate will
pass this resolution over the veto Of the
Governor
Mr.. Harris in the chair.l
EECUsATIoN OF DEFENDANTS IN DISTRICT
COURTS OF NEW ORLEANS.
The message of the Governor vetoing the
bill IN reference to the above named sub
ject having been taken up
Mr.. Ray said: Mr.. President, as the in
PRODUCER of this bill, desire to say that the
veto message does not properly cover it.
There are III the parish OF Orleans four dis
trict courts OF concurrent jurisdiction, and
it very frequently happens that the presid-
ing judges entertain different views on the
same question, without being actuated by
any improper motives. 1t is probable also
that they may sometimes entertain preju-
dice against parties defendant in cases be-
fore them. The plaintiff has right to in
stitute his suit in any court he pleases and
if the point involved has been decided in a
similar case previously in his favor, he will,
in all probability, bring his suit before the
court which has 50 decided. He may also
know that a particular judge entertains
luminosity against the party he desires to
sue, which will induce him to bring his suit
before that Judge. The object of this bill is
to give the defendant also the right to Sc
lecI the court before which his case shall be
tried. 1t provides that he may, before any
proceedings are had, recuse the Judge and
name two of the other three courts
to either one of which the case shall be
%,,,, ia fn,.r ha OH hain 1nff
TO the court. All suits for amounts under
$500 are appealable, and l am told that
parties plaintiff frequently remit enough on
their claims to make the case unappealable,
and then bring it before judge whom they
know it prejudiced against the other party,
or who has decidad tavorably similar
case previously. l do not intend in any
way to impeach the integrity or honesty of
the district judges here. 1t is perfectly
natural that they should sometimes differ
in their legal opinions, and. as said before,
they are but human and may entertain ami
mostly or prejudice against one of the parties
litigant. In the latter case there is no re-
dress for the defendant if the case should
be unappealable. No injustice can be done
by the passage Of this bill over the veto of
his excellency. The special jurisdiction of
the Eighth District Court is not to be inter-
fered with. l was informed at the last ses-
sion of the General Assembly by several
eminent lawyers of this city that the pas
sage of such a bill as this would be bene-
fetal to the administration of justice. l am
satisfied that the Governor, when he vetoed
it, did not have its merits properly pre-
scented to his mind. | make these Observa-
tons in reference to the bill. not because
have any private interest in 1t, as it does
not apply to the country courts. but be-
cause | desire exact and equal justice to be
meted out to both parties litigant in the
courts here. The progress obligation will
not he delayed in the slightest degree, as
the bill provides that the recusation shall
be filed before any proceedings are had
and that the case shall be transferred i'm
mediately to the other court to be tried in
due course of law. 1t has been prepared
by a very able and ingenious lawyer of this
city.
Mr.. Campbell-The magnitude of the
evil of which the Senator from Ouachita
Mr.. Ray complains, has not been exag,
gerated. | am told by very good authority
that the Judge of one of our district courts
has decided claims against the city, all OF
less than $500 each. amounting in the ag-
gregate to Sl50.000 or 5000. 900. it being
held that the plaintiff. by a fictitious assign
ment OF his claim into different parcels,
may sue for thousands of dollars and make
the suits unappealable. The judge of the
Sixth District Court, on account of the
hostility he entertains toward the city gov
eminent, has allowed his legal opinion to
be prejudiced to such an extent that such
cases are brought before him entirely The
result is that the city has been mulcted to a
heavy amount. l submit, however, that
tie proper way to remedy this evil is. to en-
act a law giving protection to the City IN
cases under $500. Tie great grievance
complained Of is that party may, by ticti-
tious assignments, make claim of $500
or more unappealable. l understand that
the same prejudice exists in the mind of
the judge of the Sixth District Court against
the school board and the Metropolitan Po-
lice Board, and that judgments to very
large amount have been obtained upon
fraudulent claims against those bod
les. l think the objections of his
excellency are weighty. l will call the at
tention of Senator Ray to the TACT that this
bill, if it became a law, would give to the
defendant the right which the plaintiff has
now-the privilege of choosing the court
in which his case shall be tried-depriving
the plaintiff of all opcion IN the matter.
The veto of tie Governor was sustained.
After the transaction of othe AD1siness.
on which there was no debate, the Senate
adjourned.