New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-05-20
POLICE vs.. LAW.

/
which, though generally praiseworth.
should be restrained within proper limits
committed grave mistake. On Tues
day evening he issued general order fo
what is called in police par ance, "a raic
on the houses back Of town" This order
as understood, did not designate offend
ers or ofenses that were to be arrested
or checked. or who was to be exempted
or protected, but confined the conditions
to description of locality. This was an
error OF LAWN fact, the gravest lie as
the chief Of the active conservators OF
the peace could commit
On its face it condemned all persons of
one sex to punishment because of resi-
dence. In the pure abstract this is the
exercise of power equaled only by the
Vatican DEGREES against the Albigences
Practically it not merely defines crime
or offense, but creates a new one. There
is 10 necessity to offer argument to show
that there is no authority but that of the
Legislature that can do this. Put into
effect, the order confined some hundred or
so poor women who might be guilty of all
the crimes in the decalogue, but no one
OF the officers who made the arrests had
seen them commit one of them before he
received his orders. OF course Mr. Loan
will not say he was personally cognizant
OF the commission Of any offense by any
Of them. On their trials he was not a
witness, yet they were confined by his
order, and fined in consequence of its
execution. The object of this article is to
! show him he has no such power
One of the clearest and best defined
maxims of the common law, under which
all legal actions Of the police are enforced,
is that every mans house is his castle.
The wind may whistle through it, the
storm beat upon it and the rain enter,
but the King of England can not enter it.
That maxim is engraved on the heart of
every American citizen. He is born with
that idea. Yet on Tuesday night the
police officers entered more than twenty
houses without invitation and without
warrant and removed the inmates to iail.
No argument can be suggested that would
justify this. Yet it was on Mr.. Loans
order.
There is city ordinance, and under it |
most of these arrested women were fined |
yesterday, which forbids certain conduct |
on their part, but is not and can not in |
any sense partake Of the provisions of an
habitual criminals act. 1t refers to spe-
ciic acts To be liable to it one must
commit the offense specified. To be ar
rested one must be caught in the act or be
taken on a warrant on the oath of COM
petent witness. 1t is not enough that
police officer knows an act has been COM
mitted and that the perpetrator is before
him. Before he can arrest without seeing
the act or having warrant he must also
know the perpetrator is a fugitive
The liberty of the meanest of American
subjects is as sacred under our law as
hat of the highest, and all are equally
protected. 1t is in the enforcement OF
his equality that justice resides, and it is
important that her officers
should do no wrong to her DEGREES. It
vas remarked by late eminent jurist of
louisiana, when the proposition was sub
nitted to him, that a police officer know
ng crime had been committed could
rrest the known criminal on sight with
ut a warrant that ''if that were so he
1ould leave the bench to get dose of
olson at the next apothecary shop, for :
e wouldn't live in such a country"
Superintendent Loans order was no /
oubt prompted by desire to abate
rying evil, and he was actuated by the :
est of motives. But so far from taking
le best method, he took the very worst.
q attempting to enforce simple city or
nance he violated two fundamental
of American existence. 1t d
ould be uncharitable to suggest that his
sfety is in their poverty and degraded
ondition. But Oil this point the state '
Itul tuat "utl TIE IiltluS OF the uQlOr-
mates wished to seek Judge Evans for an q
der Of bail, the remark was made that a
lie judge "could not bond because no a.
arrant had been issued" is Sig F
ticant Who could release them. z
len? If they had been persons IL
more consequence Judge Evans @
ould have had power, because no one
Ould have dared to arrest them without :
warrant. But as they were, was it only
r. Loan or one of his captains who -
uld give them their liberty? Under the =
Of the case there certainly
Is no other power who could do so. It II
flows naturally that the Superintendent :.
Police possessed the power of lsttre de
chet, could arrest, imprison, retain or
lease any one Of these and no one could 4
terfere; not even an order of bail of the A.
dge of the court before whom they were W,
appear could affect them. This simple dis
Itement presents the matter in SO clear ST.
light that it is trusted Mr. Loan will be
IS hasty in future. =
-