New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-11-29
THE sELYE CONTEMPT CASE.


THE sELYE CONTEMPT CASE.
Opi.sea Of Ssd&e TrimDie.
In the matter of Edgar Selye, deputy
United States marshal, committed for con-
tempt of order of court.-Eleventh District
Court for the parish of Lincoln, State of
Louisiana. Edgar Selye, through his coun-
sci, moves for . rehearing for the seasons
following:
/. That defendant was tried without be-
ing heard by counsel.
2. No sufficient time was granted him to
obtain the evidence necessary tor his de-
fense.
;. The order rendered in this case impOs-
ing . fine and imprisonment tor contempt
of court is contrary to law, in this, that tie
honorable court was without jurisdiction to
issue writ of habeas corpus for the dis
charge of Q pers0n held under authority OF
the United States by an officer of that gov.
eminent, that fact appearing upon the APP
plicstion for the writ.
TO the first and second reasons. above
assigned, in answer, it is only necessary to
state that the defendant, at his own re-
quest. was heard in his effort TO purge
himself of contempt when called upon to SO
do. He neither requested delay for coun-
sci, nor did he desire that time might be
afforded him to procure evidence for his
defense. but announced himself ready to
answer.
In answer to the third point urged in de-
fendant-s motion, it is necessary to refer to
the petition in behalf of the parties illegally
arrested by Seleye, and in custody OF Lieu.
tenant HOdgsOn, commanding United States
troops. The petition, which is verified by
affidavit, AYERS that Richardson, Ramsey
and Scott were arrested without any local
authority, and were taken by force from
the parish of Claiborne; that these parties
art now in the illegal detention OF one Ed
gar Seyle and federal troops: that the par
ties, without authority of law. are being
taken from their homes. The petition closes
with prayer that writ OF habeas corpus
may issue. commanding said Seyle and
troops, and those who held the. said Rich
ardsOn, Ramsey and Scott in detention; to
produce their bodies before the honorable
court by Tuesday, at 10 A. NJ October q.
and that, upon a heating of the case, they
be decreed to be illegally deprived OF their
| libertv and discharged from confinement.
The order appended to the petition reads as
follows:
"By reason of the law and the evidence
in the case being in favor OF the application
for q writ of habeas corpus. and by further
reason of the affidavit, it is ordered that a
writ of habeas corpus issue to the sbaT!f,
w. +. Aycock, to take and bring \. D..
Scott, John K. Ramsey and Sterling t.
Richardson before me, the junge at the
Eleventh Judicial District i'll the 'own of
Homer, on Or before 10 A. NJ. October q
and show any authority. ii any, said se'ye.
United States marshal, has for OBTAINING
said parties"
The petition and order were written by
James C. Egan, Esq, attorney for and in
behalf OF applicants. The order was signed
officially and the clerk Of the court directed
to issue in the name of the State of Louisi-
ana writ of habeas corpus. and further
directed that w. +. Aycock be designated
to make service of said writ.
The defendant now endeavOfs to take
advantage of technical defects; ayowing
| that NO writ issued to him; that only a
COPY of the order was served upon him; and
| that this order was not addressed to him,
| Granting that this be true, does it avail
him? Clearly not. BY reference to article
| sos, Code of Practice. the duty OF the de-
PENDANT is definitely set forth. ut is the
corpus is served, whether it be directed to
him or not, to obey and return the order
without delay to the court which issued it,
| That the writ was served is evidenced by
| the sworn return of w. +. Aycock made in
this matter of the habeas corpus. copy
| from the return: THAT he served the writ
| of habeas corpus on Edgar SelEe, and
| Lieutenant Hodgson, Seventh United States
Cavalry, on the twenty. fifth OF October ls' =,
l
them to produce the bodies Of n. }. Scott.
John Il. Ramsey and Sterling Il. Richard
son. before him ON or before Tuesday. &c
| tober q, at 10 A. M This service under
| the provisions of the article OF the Code of
| Practice above referred 10 was sufficient,
! and it was the duty ot the defendants 10
| obey the writ.
! Obedience to the writ might have been
| made by its return and answering That
the parties were held by virtue OF war
! rant issued by commissioner of the United
States or issued by a federal Judge. In
| either case the authorities seem to incline
| to the opinion that it was not necessary to
| produce the bodies of the parties before the
| Judge issuing the writ, when the writ issued
| by State judge and the warrant for arrest
| issued by q federal tribunal. The two lurls
dictlons, State and federal, are entirely dis
| tinct and separate, and d conflict of juris
dictiOn can not be tolerated by the one or
the other. But in this case there is no con-
flict of Jurisdiction. In the present matter
it il IN inquiry whether or not the order of
the court was treated by the defendant
with the respect due it. BY reference to
tho sworn returns of the sheriff the follow
ing language is found:
THAT they (Selye and Hodgson) refused
to obey the writ of habeas corpus, and
stated to the atfiant to give their compli-
ments to Judge Trimble: that they did not
Obey parish officers, and that they would
use the writ to wipe with when they went
to the privy, and that Judge Trimble might
90 to hell"
More insulting language could not be
used by Billingsgate adept. The language
is not only in contempt OF the court, but it
is libel upon manhood, stain and detile-
ment upon the character OF the parties
using it.
That the writ issued properly il is only
necessary to refer to the petition to inGuire.
The applicant put himself wholly within
the provisions of law emitting to the rem
edy he sought, and it was tho duty OF the
court to grant the relief he prayed for. No
assignable cause for arrest is apparent on
the face of the papers. and the position that
a deputy United States marshal can make
arrests without legal process in his posses
sion, "a too absurd to notice. This dis
misses the third point in the motion.
The law is justly jealous of the dep-lva-
ton of the liberty of persons and unless
the deprivation is legal, and under due
process of competent tribunal of justice,
no officer. whether he be State or federal.
can be maintained in depriving the citizen
of his inestimable right of liberty and free.
dom of his person. The writ of habeas
corpus was invoked to determine by what,
if any, authority the parties, Richardson,
Ramsey and Scott were deprived of their
liberty. This writ was served upon Edgar
Selye, deputy United States marshal, and
Lieutenant Hodgson, Seventh United States
Cavalry. 1t was treated with gross con-
tamDt