New Orleans Republican., 1875-09-07
A JUDICIAL CONFLICT.

A very unseemly and disagreeable con-
test has sprung up between the First Dis
trict and Superior Courts in consequence
of the interference of Judge Abel in a
matter pending before Judge Hawkins. It
is just such case as was contemplated by
the statute of February, 1870 which i'm
poses serious penalties upon the judge
who provokes the contest. A sense of iu-
dicial propriety and courtesy is usually
sufficient to prevent conflicts between
tribunals Of equal rank and dignity.
Moreover, it has been held to be one of the
highest prerogatives Of court to protect
its dignity and sustain its jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court itself has formally de.
cided that it can not interfere in con-
tempt case, except such interference be
necessary to protect its appellate jurisdic-
ton. If then, the highest tribunal can
not interfere in certain cases, how cen
another district judge, who can not BY
any legal possibility review decision,
step between party and the Judgment Of
q coordinate tribunal.
The case which is at the bottom of this
Judicial controversy arose in the Superior
District Court. Larrieux and Frilot were
injoined from doing a certain thing. They
disregarded the order, and were commit
ted for contempt. The order of commit
ment is the solemn judgment of the Su.
perior District Court which Judge Abel
claims the right to review, revise and re-
verse, though the plain letter of the
statute imposes heavy fine upon him for
doing so. If the right to release prison
ers committed for contempt by the other
judges be conceded to Judge AbelI, his
court then becomes superior to all others,
and the power of coordinate tribunals to
execute their DEGREES is paralyzed and de-
stroyed
There is nothing in the writ of habeas
corpus which gives court jurisdiction
over the cause for which a person has
been committed to prison. The Judge
can only inquire into the legality of the
commitment, and if he find it to be made
by proper authority, and legal in form,
the rule must be discharged. A prisoner
thus discharged is, however, liable to i'm
mediate re-arrest fer the same offense.
The offense in the case in question con-
sists of disobedience of an order of in
junction, for which the persons offending
were committed to the Parish Prison in
the usual form. Judge Abel has decided
the form of commitment to be Illegal, and
released the prisoners. They have again
been arrested by an order from the Su-
perior Court, and again brought before
Judge Abell. How long this game OF
legal battledore and shuttlecock is to be
kept up we can not say.
Certainly Judge Abel's stump speech
from the bench, which he is so fond Of
using, and which, as usual, he employed
yesterday, throws no legal light upon the
case. The "despotism propped up by
bayonsts, )" which Judge Abel delights tc
take tilt at every few days, is not speci.
ally anxious that .Messrs. Frilot and Lar,
rieux shall be imprisoned, but the public
good demands that the orders of the State
courts shall be obeyed. Anything which
strikes down this principle is an elemen,
of greater mischief and danger to the pub
lie welfare than all the bayonets which
ever cleaned under the banners of ths
Union.