Richland beacon. [volume] (Rayville, La.) 1869-1890, 1876-08-19
Parish COurtS-Shall They be
Abolished.
JNo. L. &. CoRKERN, See

Mr.. 4. Trudcnu, in a letter TO the
Times Uf Yesterday, urges his objcc-
lions to the third proposed amend
men, o: the Constitution, which con-
templates the abolition of the Parish
courts, and the investment Of their
powers in the District Courts and
Justices Of the Peace. We can only
agree with him in his conclusion that
the whole judicial system of the State
should he reorganizcd, and that as il
is now constituted. in the country
parishes it is entirely inadequate to
the purposes of litigation. Mr.. Tru-
deau very justly observes
! We see no reason why we should adhere,
TO the Obsolete and anri1uaicd system of fly.
ing district judges making twice a year al,
appearance in each parish. We believe that
the accused should have a speedy trial
as provided 10y tie Constitution, and not lie.
. IN jul six months To await the term OF District
! Court. We know that cur agricultural inter
cs,s suffer from want OF capital. and that no
man Of ordinary prudence will invest in
| country securities so long As he canno, promptly
enforce the payment Of his claim.
lie then goes on to suggest a sys-
TEN ofjudiciary that, with such chang
es and improvements as professional
experience aud knowledge might offer,
. would perhaps give the country par
ishes much more efficient and cx-
peditious administration of justice
both civil and criminal.
In concluding, however, he gets st
the gist Of the whole matter, and
say S what is entirely true. so far as
the reorganization of our judiciary is
concerned. lie says:
But VIC can never organize an eificien, uli.
cial system until our Constitution i. revised
and the office OF Judge is made more pcrna.
nent. Until then We co,,>iie our present
Constitution bad enough. without making il
worse by such crude amendment as No. ::
4 revision is certainly necessary,
and thorough. professional and en-
ligh'cncd one. 10 effect the radical
changes he suggests. but we fail to be
impressed with the force Of his aryu.
ment with reference to the objections
to the proposed amendment.
Regarding. a. We do, the radical
innovation he Suggests Ms impractical
BILE just now. We can only consid,r
this proposed abolition of Parish
Courts in its relation to the present
Judiciary systems. Regarded from
this point of view, we entirely ap-
prove Of it. The trouble with Mr
Trudcau is that he does not sneak
technically. and, therefore, advisedlv.
In stating his very first objection to
the Parish Courts as now constituted
he betrays an ignorance of the subjcc,
that is palpable to the professional
mind. He higgins ',y saying In regard
10 the Parish Courts:
The most o!.jrrion.l feature Of those courr.
is the right given tn those Judges To interfere
with the execution OF Judgments rendered by
the District Cour'; bat this can now be rem.
cdied by simple legislative enactment. re.
aciIenf, repeating the statute that authorizes
parish Judges to cnJ lin judment. or orders of
seizure and sale of the District Cemr, drriny
the absence of the judge from the parish.
10 this observation be be,rays an
utter ignorance of the whole subject.
The parish Judge, in issuing these
orders OF INDUCTION and restraint, does
not do so in the capacity of Parish
Judge, but as Judge ad hoe of the
District Court. Again, it would be
an exceedingly great hardship if there
were not q resident judicial officer EN-.
powered to issue these conservatory
writs. 10 every instance the party
aggricveG is protected against wanton
wrong by a bond, and the District
Judge, on proper presentation, is lust |
as much obliged to issue the writs ms .
is the Parish Judge. We do not re. :
gard these writs as evils, but if they
are, 1t results from an ingrained prin. !
ciplr of our system of laws and not
from The authority vested in the Par.
ish Judges. These powers must he
vested in resident authority, and
there can be no way to guard against
the inprovident resort to them EXCEPT
by the exaction of bond. There has
never been in any other system of
laws any other protection known.
The judge has no discretion in grant
ing these orders, though he may dis
solve them on rule, SO it is of little
whether the power TO
grant them reside in the District or
Parish Judges, or the Clerks Of the
Court. Mr.. Trudeau objects to con.
crring them on clerks, apparently
lpoR the grounds that be Objects to
he manner in which they are exercis-
d by the Parish Judges. Prior to
be adoption of the Constitution of
S6S the power to grant all these pre-
urinary and conservatory writs was
ested in clerks of the court, and the
ystem was enthely satisfactory. '
'hese writs must he issued upon !
roper showing and bond, and no ,
'arning 10 the law is necessary At all
! the matter, as no discretion is per.
lifted.