New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-01-14
EIGHTH DISTRICT COURT.
Important Petition-The Bogus Legisla-
ture Perpetnai Iniuctioa Asked.

Oldlc vi LOulSldud VS.. UcOTSc w Val
ter.-The Governor of the State, in his Of
fetal capacity, asks the court for an injunc-
ton to restrain ian unlawful assemblage
of persons cOnspiring to overthrow the
legitimate authority of the State, from act
ing as the House OF Representatives." ana
as SUCH arresting the members of the Gen
eral Assembly of the State of Louisiana,
and carrying them to certain room on
ROYAL street, in this city.
The rule nisi has been issued. 1t is for
the court to determine whether it snail be
made perpetual
The names of the parties composing this
assemblage are set forth in the petition,
with the declaration that their acts are an
illegal and improper interference with the
legitimate authority Of the State.
The remedy sought is that these persons
be forever enjoined from holding any as
sembly as the House of Representatives in
any other place than at the Capitol OF the
State, viz the building known as the Me
chanics' Institute, in this city, on Dryades
street.
Assuming the allegations of the petition
to be true, the first inquiry which presents
itself is whether case is presented for the
writ of in junction.
What is the case presented
First-The Governor of the State, acting
for the State, and represented by the At
Second-That the rightful place for the
General Assembly Of the State of Louisiana
to meet and hold its sessions is at the
Capitol.
Ihird-That the meeting of the General
Assembly at this place is prevented by the
unlawful acts of the defendants.
Fourth-That defendants, who do not as
| semble at the Capitol. but elsewhere, have
| no legal right to the character they assume,
Of ant
| but are Ombining unlawfully together to
| overthrow the legitimate authority of the
| State.
This ia not an open question. The SUI
premc Court has decided, in the case OF
State. ex rel. Belden Attorney General, VS..
William Pagan ct al, - Annual Re
| ports. p. 5i6 that ''the State has the right
to restrain, by injunction, persons (who
have iolned themselves together Tor the
avowed purpose of doing what is prohibited
by law from carrying into effect their I'M
| lawful purposes. and from interfering with
| her agents in the execution OF the legisla
tive will
Conceding, then, the allegations of the
petition to be true, the writ of Injunction is
proper writ herein.
The State is before the court. asking tina,
certain persons who have joined themselve:
| together. with the avOwed purpose of acting
strained from carrying into effect their un
lawful purposes and from interfering will
the real House of Representatives in tn,
discharge of its constitutional duties.
But even if the question had not beer
settled by an adjudication of the Suprem,
| Court of the State. it is apparent, on prln
cple, that the writ of Injunction properl,
| lies in the case.
1t will be conceded State has as great
right to have her interests protected when
| ever they are threatened as an individual
| The courts are as open to the consideration o
her claims as to those of any one else. And i
the remedial agency of restraining writs cal
be invoked in any instance by an il
dividual, it certainly can be invoked by
the State. Suppose, then, the House o
Representatives were private corporation
required by its charter to hold its meeting
in particular place. Suppose certain par
ties should claim they constituted the cor
pOration. and should by unlawful interior
ence prevent or attempt to prevent the rea
corporation from enjoying its franchises an,
proceeding with its regular business. Cal
it be questioned an injunction would lie L
restrain the illegal acts complained of!
AN Injunction will be granted TO proven
an act tending to disable corporations from
exercising their franchise. as well as to re
strain party from violating it by attempt
ing to participate in its exclusive privileges.
United States Supreme Court, 1924. Osborn
vs.. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheaton
73S.
So in Kerr ct al. vs.. Treio ct al. Lowrie
c.. j. a Penn. r, 295.
This remedy (injunctiOn) extends to al
acts that are contrary to law and prejudi
cial to the interests of the community an,
for which there is no adequate remedy a
law: and we can hardly imagine any ac
that more closely falls within the descrip
ton than one that casts SO deep a shade u
doub, and confusion on the public affairs o
a city as this does. In such case no remed
is adequate that is not prompt and speedy
and We know of no other remedy that is S
prompt and speedy as this one. If a privat
partnership or corporation were to fall int
"a similar confusion. affecting ali its mem
bers and all its creditors, we can think q
no better remedy than this for stopping tn
confusion that would be caused by two OF
posite parties pretending to act as the ST
ciety. Il is the very remedy usual Y adopte
when churches divide into parties. and W
applied it in three such cases in the las
year. Therein we decided directly on til
rights OF property, because that became tn
aim OF dispute. Here we must decide o.
the right to public functions, because tina
is here the purpose of the dispute. Tn
main question in all such cases is regularit
of organization. and the right to function
and property is mere consequence of this.
To the same effect: Baltimore VS.. Porter
Is MARYLAND. 2S4. Fort VS.. Groves, ,
Maryland 1873.
If. then, a corporation. in the case sul
posed. would have the right to IA writ of il
junction, clearly the State can have no les
a right
Bearing in mind we are assuming the a
legations of the petition to be true; that i.
there is but one House of Representatives
that it holds, or attempts to hold, its ses
sions in the Capitol building, the plac
designated by law: but that certain person:
defendants herein, can, combining together
prevent the regular meetings, and. unles
restrained. will work an irreparable iniur
to the plaintiff We say, keeping this bt
fore us. what reason can be urged why tn
writ of in junction does not lie. If one ca
be ina gined, it can only be ON the theOr
that the interests of the State are nor
open to attack and less protected by court
than those of an individual. But are til
allegations of the petition true!
This brings up the inquiry whether thi
court can question them; # so, to what el
tent, and by what kind of evidence.
First, let us determine what facts til
court must take judicial notice Of and in +,
spect to which no proof can be given.
Courts will .judical.y recognize the pr
litical constitution or frame of their Ow
government, its essential political agents {
public officers sharing III its regular admin
lstration and its essential and regular polit
cal operations, powers and actions. TIL,
notice is taken by all tribunals Of the acce
sion of the chief executive of the nation
State under whose authority they act. Ii
powers and privileges, the genuineness
his signature. stated DAYS of gencr
political elections. the sitting of the Legisl
lure and its established ana usual course
proceeding. '-tircenleat Oh Evidence, VI
/, p. 10.
LAS the courts" says Mr.. Justice Coole
l in The People VS.. Mahanny." l3 Michiga