The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1876-02-15
THE COURTS.


/. THE kIS.
Superior Criminal Court.
ARRAIGNED.
Frank Romeo, alias Nine Fingered Fran]
alias Dago Fraud, alias Pretty Frank. II
formation for carrying . concealed weapon
. Pleaded not guilty.
Peter Crane, embezzlement. Pleaded nj
guilty.
Bernard Baumgarden, charged with carry
ing concealed weapon, pleaded not guilty.
Jack Kerrigan, charged with assault an
battery, not guilty.
| Louis Sylvester, charged with carrying
concealed weapon, pleaded guilty, and wa
fined $25 and costs of prosecution or te
\ days in the Parish Prison. Louis took tn
ten days.
There was full bench present yesterday
and the following opinions were read:
Justice WILEY disseHts.
State vs.. Charles Clinton ct ais. The Re
publican Printing Company. intervenor and
appellee. Appeal from the Superior Distric,
Court, parish of Orleans.
ut is not necessary" said the Court, s'to
decide in this case whether the act of the 3Oth
of March, as published on the Sd Of April be
the law or both acts embrace the same apprc.
priation in favor Of the Republican Printing
Company, and as both acts make appropria.
lions in excess of the revenues for the year.
The first question to be decided is whether
the old act shall be declared void, because it
makes appropriations in excess of the reve-
nues or whether only so much thereof as in
excess shall be declared null?
"This is very important and delicate
question, for if the law were to be declared
wholly void, there could be no moneys drawn
from the treasury for the current expenses of
State government; while on the other hand
it might be seen that the courts were trench
ing upon the functions Of the legislative de-
partment in changing or amending an APP
preparation bill, If they declared some items
thereof valid and others void, but this is not
so in reality. The courts are only exercising
their judicial functions when they determine
that one part of law is solid and another
null. A law is entire when each part has
general bearing on the rest. In such q case
II one part be null the whole is null.
"But law may be partly solid and partly
invalid where the parties themselves are en-
tire. Independent and distinct from each
other. Ia this case each appropriation is dis
tinct and Independent from the others, and
any one may be unconstitutional without
affecting the others any more than if they
were embraced in separate acts.
"If each appropriation in these bills had
been made in separate acts, bearing the same
date. would it be maintained that because the
Legislature had made appropriations in ex-
cess of the revenues of the State, all the sew
eral acts were unconstitutional We think
not 1t would be the duty Of the Court to
ascertain the Legislative intention, SO as to give
effect to as many of said laws as possible with
put violating the Constitution.
"When seeking the legislative intention |
Ve will presume that the legislators intended |
o perform their sworn duty by providing for |
he current necessary expenses Of the gov
,rnment fixed by existing laws, and be-
ore creating any new obligations or confer
ing any iberalities, this presumption is sup
ported by the bills in question. 1t is an act |
making appropriations for the general ex.
,enses of the State for the year 1875, provid-
ng for deficiencies existing in appropriations
or the year 1874, providing for and regulating
he payment and auditing of said claims and
Obligations out of the revenues of the years in
which said obligations were issued or said
laims incurred, providing for and regulating
he manner of auditing. warranting and
lquidating said claims and obligations, and
roviding for the receipt of certain warrants
4 payment OF certain taxes due the State,
nd to provide for the absorption of the float
lg indebtedness; and it is fair to infer that
icy only intended that the appropriations,
ther than those fer current necessary ex- .
enses, should be paid out of any moneys in .
70 treasury not otherwise appropriated. 4
hat is after the current necessary expenses !
lould have been provided for.
Making appropriations for current neces-
~ expenses is . duty, while making other
preparations for obligations already ex-
ing would rest in the discretion of the
,gislature, and when ma le without provid-
8 Ievenue to meet such appropriations
ould be creating debt within meaning of T
9 Constitution. (23 An. R page 4O3.)
els the claim Of the Republican Printing 9
'mpany necessary current expense of the
ate This is not denied, nor could it we'll l,
. The laws must be published, the deci- t,
ms of this court must be published, besides
my other things which are required to be
Iblished by the public printer. The evil :,
nee in the record shows that services to the
tent Of nearly the whole appropriation had
eady been rendered, and that the appro-
alton for the necessary current expenses, :.
der laws existing at the time, do not exceed
, revenues provided for the year 1875"
Judgment Of the lower court affirmed. y
Unitcd States Circuit Court.
The Grand Jury brought in q number Of
ictments, which were spread on the secret
nutes.
n the case of F. NJ. Goodrich vs.. L Hun 81
it was decreed that the injunction OBJ
1ed in the State court be set aside.
The exceptions to the Masters report in Do
case Of Jackson vs.. Vicksburg, Shreve. :
t and Texas Railroad were overruled, and
80 parties holding disallowed bonds should ~
costs.
he case of the United States Vs. F. Du- q
hefer was opened and continued until =.
lay. %
Department of Finance. 81
CITY HALL, /,
New Orleans, January % 1876. | -