New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-12-04

cock was ordered to take Scott and OtneTs
and bring them before the judge. 1t was
(cop;es of which l have since obtained)
that Sheriff Aycock had those parties in
custody. Sheriff. Aycock's name is no
where mentioned in the petition OF affidavit, |
why then order linn to take and bring |
those parties before the judge! To do 40, he
would have to take them from the United
States marshal, as in my order Itself.
Selye is described az lnlted States marshai,
and Aycock is ordered to show by what |
authority Selye. as marshal, held them.
Now. if Ayccck. sheriff, had literally Obeyed |
this order, and proceeded to attempt to |
take Scott and others out OF the marshaPs !
custody, and the marshal had refused to |
give them up. as 1t would have been
his duty to do, a conflict would have been
brought about. and II any 6loodshen nau
been the result, Aycock and his abettors
would have attempted to shelter themselves
behind this order. This has been the arttul |
dodge of the Democrats, the ku-klux and
White Lacquer s in all their nefarious crimes |
in this State to protect themselves behind |
some kind of supposed legal order as in this |
case and had Ayccck. sheriff, received this |
order before l conveyed the prisoners out |
of his parish. have no doubt but that he |
wonld have attempted, with posse, to take |
the prisoner. out OF my hands under that |
order. which would have been resisted by |
me a. United States marshal, as it would |
have been my duty to do.
| will! now proceed to show that the pro
ceediny gainst He for contempt of count
for not obeying tue supposed habeas corpus |
was entirely unauthorized and illegal, even
If tie order had been habeas corpus IN
proper form and substance. In the first
place. disobeyiug a writ OF habeas corpus is
no. a contemp. of court in the sense III
which contempts of court are punishable,
according to article Isl OF the Code OF
Practice. In the second place. contempt
of court is in the nature OF a criminal pro
ceeding. and can only be pronounced ana
nunisheG when the court Is in regular SEES
sion. in term time lit can not be done in
chambers. Ia the third place, the law has
expressly provided how party who dis.
Obeys writ Gf habeas corpus must b. pro-
ceeded against. Ii a party refuses to obey
the writ. the Jaw, article 81 II. Code OF Prac-
tice, SAYS: "When the habeas corpus has
been duly served. If the party in whose
favor it has been granted is not produced
within the time above fixed, the judge who
issued :he writ shall issue warrant to
some officer of justice. commanding him to
arrest and take in charge the person who
disobeyed the writ, and to bring such per.
son before him to be proceeded against ac-
cort!ing to law" Ii was bound to produce
the persons, Scott and Others, before the
Judge in answer to the writ OF 1abaas cor.
pus and failed to do SO, | was liable TO ar
rest as provided for in the above law, and
to be brough: before the judge to be pro.
ceeded against according to law. not for
contempt OF court. The following, article
Sl5, defines what this proceeding according
to law means; it says: ''lf the person thus
| brought before the Judge refuses to deliver
the ha beas corpus which has been served
upon him, or to produce the party whom he
was ordered to produce in the case. where.
according to the above provisions, he might
be compelled to do it, he shall be sent to
prison, and shall semain there until
he obeys the habeas corpus. and shall be
| condemned to pay all the costs OK the pro-
! ceedlng, besides the action for false lmpris-
prisonment which the party may institute
against him." This is the penalty for re-
| fusing TO obey writ OF habeas corpus pro
vided by law. A party is not subject to be
punished for contempt of court for retus
| ing to obey writ OF habeas corpus, any
more than writ ct injunction, when the
law expressly provides the penalty. as in
| this case.
Now. in this case the order OF the Judge
! OH its face charged me with treating his
! writ with contempt, and the Judgment pro-
| nOunced against me OF imprisonment for
| ten days and a find Of 500 and costs of ar.
| rest is stated to be "tOr contempt" No de.
| mand was made of me to comply with the
| supposed writ OF habeas corpus, and my
! defense made orally when was brought
| before the court for contempt was. that
! arrested the parties. Scott, Ramsey and
I Richardson under a writ of arrest issued by
| United States commissioner. which l had
| then in my pocket, and would have pro-
| duceG it if l had been asked for, or l had
been permitted 10 do SO. But no. was
| not to be released On complying with the
- ahnnn NV
showing my authority for the arrest which
| eminated from United States authority.
! aud the very production of which would
| deprive Judge Trimble Of any Jurisdiction
| in or over the case. No, this would not
satisfy the people. ''goaded to desperation"
o.. account of being liable to arrest tor vic.
lation OF tine United States criminal 1aws.
but must be punished. however ilega! OK
unjust it might be, to atone for Gy being a
| deputy Caited States marshal. entrusted
! with the execution OF such arrests: and
this was the means resorted to to do it. and
Judge Trimble len. Ainst If willing tool
70 carry it out.
In closing the legal argumen: in this
| case, l wish 70 state that the law Is well
| settled by the unanimous opinion OF the
| Supreme Court Of the United States in
| the case OF Abelman IS. Booth. II How.
ard. 5!3-that a State court or judge may
Issue q writ Of habeas corpus against any
| person hoiGin. another as a sprisoner, ant.
| inquire into his authority for SO doing. The
court says: But after the return is made
and the State Judge or court iudicial!y APP
| prised that the party ia in custody under
| tho authority OF the United States. they
can proceed no further And the court
| proceeds to say: "If no il wrongtully .m
prisoned then 1.-THE United Statesj tribunals
| can release him and afford him redress.
And although as have said il is the
duty OF the marshal or other person hold
| ing him TO make known by proper return
the authority under which he detains l:m:
| it is at the same time imperatively his duty
| to obey the process Of the United States 10
! hold the prisoner ii, custody under II and
to refuse obedience 20 the mandate or pro
cess OF any Other government. Ana con
! sequently it IL his duty not to take the
! prisoner, nor suffer him 10 be taken before
State Judge or court upon habeas corpus
issued under State authority. No State
| judge or court. after they are judiclaliy IN
| formed that the party is imprisoned under
the authority OF the United States. has any
right TO interfere with him or to require
| him TO be brought before them. And II
| authority of the State in the form OF judicial
| process OK other s. Use should attempt to con-
| troll the marshal or other authorized officer
or agen: of the United States. in any
| respect, in the custody OF his prisoner. IL
would be his duty to resis. it, and to cal! to
his aid any force shat might be necessary
| to maintain the authority Of !a~ aSaint
illegal interference; no judicial process
| whatever form it may assume, can have any
| lawful authority outside OF the limits OF the
! jurisdiction of the court or judge by whom
! it is issued. and any attempt to enforce 1t
beyond these boundaries is nothing less than
! iawless violence This long quotation
from the highest judicial tribunal! is given
70 sh0X my true nnsifinn in this case. and