New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-02-05


these reasons he OF posed the bill.
Mr.. Lngraham wanted Mrs. Noble paid
fair compensation, but said the State wa
IN no condition to make extravagant ap
preparations for work that it had no earth
ly use for. With such legislation as th'
passage Of the bill before the Senate, it wal
useless to talk about reform. He would
therefore, move to have the bill recomlntet
to the Committee on Claims. and the mo
! ton was sustained
The Senate adjourned to meet today a.
l2N.
Mr. Montaldos resolution, paying the
newly seated members for the two preyiou:
sessions. was called up.
Mr. Benham said it was not proper to pay
them out of appropriations of this session
and on motion of Mr.. Young tie resolution
was referred to the Committee on Contin
gent Expenses.
Mr.. Kern, of Jefferson, introduced bill
paying costs 10 w. 7. Harper in tax suits
Mr.. Davidson. of the Committee on Ju-
dietary, reported fayorably on several bills,
among them u substitute for several bills
permitting parish judges to practice law,
which merely repealed section ll6 of Re-
vised Statutes. which forbids both them
| and sheritfs. clerks and other officers ap-
| pearlng as attorneys.
Mr.. Estilette, of st. Landry, opposes the
bill. The duties Of parish judges were on
erous and too important to be interfered
with. They should stand removed from
all influences which might prevent an i'm
partial decision or which would affect their
opinions. To allow them to discharge the
duties Of lawyers would detract from their
usefulness and dignity.
Mr. Davidson supported the bill. If
judges OF parish courts were allowed to
practice in other courts, first class lawyers,
| the best legal talent in the country could be
obtained. for they would not be compelled
to Telinquish a lucrative practice as they
now were. OF course, no man with any
respect for himself would interest himself
in case which he might be called upon to
decide
Mr.. Young considered the law az il stood
proper one. 1t had been framed when
mems minds were clear on the subject, and
should not Oe altered. He admitted that
men who were ii to be judges should be fit
20 practice at the bar. but when they were
elevated - the bench they should cease to
look after their private. professional and
Pecuniar: interests. He moved the iadei-
mite postponemcnt of the bill
Ir. Mathews. Of Tensas, thought :hc bill
should be :ecou.n.t;ed 20 the Judiciary
COMMITTEES.
Mr.. Hahn said the bill was more import.
ant than appeared at first blush. II any
department OF the government: should be
kept above suspicion it was the Judiciary.
The law as it stood on the statute book was
eminently proper. a Judge ought 20 be
above legal squabbles. The law that pre-
vents judges from practicing was according
to right and justice. 1t also prevents sher.
ifs and clerks from practicing. It is very
plain it they were allowed :ha: privilege
they would take advantage OF clients. a tor.
neys snd others. This objection would
no. apply 10 judges. but the arsumenu
against their practicing IS equally forcible.
Il they 20 before other courts they vii! be-
com. involved in controversies before and
with other Judges. with attorneys, and the
publi.. That Will detracs from theie dig.
nifty and character. They can not do this
without prf'adicing the respec. they should
receiye from the public. Suppose a parish
Judge appears before Il Justice OF the peace
in a case which. on appeal. would como be.
toEe aim. I. would be reasonable to e..
pect be would be governed in his decision
BY the opinion he maintained as counsel. 1t
would bs nndignfied and improper. This
bill might benefit :tree q. four parish
Judges. but in the majority OF cases !. would
only work harm. He hoped the law would
stand wheSe the previous I..g!s.at uye. had
left il.
Mr.. Murrei!. Ci !.afourc:e. favored the
bill because the lawyers opposed il. They
knew i: would interfere with their business,
and IS the majority Of the bar of the State
was contrary: 20 civil rights. he opposed J
them. Lafourche parish had the best bar
IN the State. but he never trusted any la W.
, ,er and never would. Il parish Judge Is |
capable OF practicing at the bar. let him do it.
The order of the day was called, which |
WAS the bill! relating to tobacco inspectors.
he question being the motion 20 refer it 70 !
,he CommitteeOn Corporations.
Mr. Eoirfgues moved to lay the motion
m the table. which the House refused to do.
Mr.. Eodrigues then claimed to be entitled
o the floor, and the Speaker stating he had
until some one called him to order. he
to advocate the immediate pas
age of the bill.
At the conclusion Of Lis remarks ne called
he previous question. which the House
ecOnded
Mr.. Rodrigues inquired Of the Speaker
he condition of the bill, and the Speaker
aid the question now was on the motion to
eter to the Committee on Corporations,
nd the previous question had been or,
cred.
The bill was referred by a vote of u to 27.
On Mr.. MOntaldo's motion the committee |
as ordered to report on both bills on Mon ,
ay.
The bill introduced BY Mr.. Grant, of
ore house. preventing planters from dis
'sing Of their crops after mortgaging them
r money or supplies, was taken up. ,
Mr.. Grant said the bill was necessary.
present small planters who had nothing
1t leased land and property. which was q
empt by law, could not obtain the neces-
ry supplies. If this law was passed rner- .
ants would supply them.
Mr.. Murrell, of Madison, said it was the -
me measure he had assisted to defeat at p
@ previous session, and he thought it op- -,