New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-01-26

true, for the jury is selected by two jury
commissioners who are appointed by the
Governor, which shows the judge does not |
select it. The Governor should nave
nothing to do with the jury commissioners;
but the facts do not justify these remarks.
Mr.. Jones said there had been so much
confusion that he did not comprehend the
question, and voted blank.
Mr.. Lowell said the constitution pointed
out the manner OF proceed in general
He was brought up in State where the
common law prevails, and he considered ne
was competent to speak on the question
better than those who had devoted them
selves to the civil law, for criminal proceed
lngs we're all under the common law
When q statute prescribed mode OF pro
ceeding in special case, under the prin-
ciple of common law the decision OF the court
can not be refuted But the judge did make
a mistake when he directed the accused to
he held to answer before the grand jury,
and required new bond. He should have
discharged them entirely, for it the ln1of'
nations were improperly fled there was
nothing to hold them. There should have
been new capias, and this was where the
court overstepped the law, and he dehed
any lawyer to say otherwise. This pro-
ceeding is unusual, bad precedent, and
derogatory to the dignity Of the bench.
Assuming that it is the duty of the Legis'
lature to approve or condemn the action OF
courts upon questions of law, it is agreed
that in this case the action of the judge is
| in strict compliance with the statutee, and
| is approved by many of the most eminent
| members Of the bar. Until the passage of this
| act referred to, the courts had no power to
prosecute the legislator for the offense OF
bribery, and for grave reasons the Legisla-
ture has only authorized the prosecutions oy
indictment. Criminal statutes must be con-
strued strictly, and no power can be as
sumed or presumed by the courts which are
not specially delegated by the people
through the Legislature. 1t was not the
intention of the Legislature to authorize
anv one officer, of his own motion, to place
a member of the Legislature upon trial for
An infamous crime. The law-making power
of the government should be free from in
fuenceiby the judiciary. The Legislature
which passed this act referred to had good
reasons for requiring that prosecutions
should be only upon indictment by grand
iury. To assume that section l066, Revised
Statutes, giving the meaning of certain
words in that act, can be held to this act
passed three years later, is too ridiculous to
require notice.
Mr.. Raw asked if those Immediately in
terested were to be allowed to vete.
Speaker Estilette said he had already
ruled in a similar case that they could. The
law provided when they could not.
The resolution being adopted by vote
of 60 tn 20, Mr.. Stewart moved recon
slderation.
Mr.. Stewart said he had voted in the
affirmative for the purpose of moving re
consideration and offering substitute. HI
would favor any investigation the HOUSE
. desired, which would conform to the law
The resolution did not do so. 1t was strang'
that when but short time ago the mouth
, piece of the Democratic party, and all tn
, papers of the city, except the Delta, whicl
t was not now in existence, had eulogize'
Judge Steele as man of high character
: integrity and ability, one of that party nov
4 offered q resolution questioning that chal
= acter. 1t placed the Democratic party il
t an antagonistic position to its press. d
was willing to inquire into any act of Judg
| l.. SO tot VIC
and his ability unquestionable But it cam
: with bad grace from that side of the Hous
3 to move for an investigation on man tn
o party had lauded to the skies 80 short
l time ago.
Mr.. Walker inquired if Mr.. Stewart ha
;. read the article in the Delta.
/. Mr.. Stewart said yes, and he had 81
. pressly excepted that paper. He aske'
Q that his substitute be read by the Clerk as
Q part of his speech and spread upon tn
r minutes, which was done.
Calls for yeas and nays which not wer
=. taken and motion for the previous questio
d bv Mr.. Demas, and another member callin
for the yeas and nays on it, caused Speake
s Estilette to rule that the yeas and nay
+ could not be called on it, but only on th
main question.
Mr.. Sartain cited the constitution, articl
l, thirty-si but was ruled out of order.
!. Mr.. Ray called the previous question
< and being ruled out of order, appealed. II
: was about to discuss the appeal, but wa
d called to order by Mr.. Dupre, on the groun
d that an appeal could not be discussed. Th
t being decided in Mr.. Rays favor, he wa
d called to order by Mr.. Guichard, but M
s Lowell at this moment called for the ordt
of the day. Mr.. Ray inquiring it it coul
# be called while an appeal was pending, tt
Q Speaker ruled that it could be, and M
Q Raw asked that the decision be recorded.
Q Mr.. Edwards called up the jackson an
l. Lincoln parish bill, and moved that it
Q engrossed.
It Mr.. Stewart moved that it be postpone
g to Saturday.
Mr.. Demas made succession of poin
J, of order, the result being that the Speake
ruled the bill was on it's second readln
( there being nothing on the minutes to Il
. contrary.
The motion to postpone was lost.
It Mr.. Walker in the chair.J
Y Mr., Edwards moved for q second rea
Q ing, but the Chair decided it had been rel
d twice by it's title the day before; he tn
It moved to suspend the rules.
n Messrs. Demas and Hahn made the poi
n that it required four-ffths vote, and Il