The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-05-22

s'prisons) provided that 'the sherffs Of the dit-
ferent parishes shall be the keepers of the public
jails in their respective parishes" The work
houses and other prisons used as parish jails In
the city OF New Orleans were, under this provis-
ion Of the "Statutes," placed under the control
Of the sheriff OF the parish of Orleans, who be.
came their kee per.
The same year WAS promulgated an act ITO
consolidate the city Of New Orleans, and provide
for the government and administration of it's
affairs 1t provided that tal the powers, rights,
privileges and immunities possessed and enjoyed
by the First, Second and Third Municipalities of
the city OF New Orleans, shall cease aud term-
nate 30 far as regards the said muncip palites and
general council This act did not and could not
continue In The newly consolidated corporation
q legislative grant Of power made specially to
"the council OF each municipality" "within their
respective limits" The erection and m msipten-
ance Of work house, within corporation provid.
ed with the jail recognized In article 80 OF the pres
ent constitution {lbe parsh-prison) being unne-
cessary, are the exercising Of Legislative powers
not within the proper province OF municipal LEGAL
government aud void. Admitting however, that,
in this one regard, the powers vested In the mu.
inequalities were, by implication, continued in the
new city of New Orleans, as established by the
act of 1852, by the act Of 1856 amendatory to
the act Of 1859. (which repeals all former
laws in conflict with is provisons,) it is enacted
that "the city of New Orleans, as established by
this act, shall he vested with all the powers.
| Municipal corporation, and necessary for the
prupsr government OF the same" None of the
powers. privileges and immunities enjoyed by the
city of New Orleans, either when divided into
| municipalities or when first consolidated in
1864 are vested in the altered corporation, even
by implication. In none Of the many charters
provided for the government OF New Orleans.
from the frat in Los to the last in 1870 Is con-
tanned the slightest reference to the erection OF
work houses.
Again, in 1856 An act was passed defining and
furnishing vagrancy, materially and essentially
different from the act Of 1S41. This act OF 1866
aboshee the act Of 1S4l by repeating all former
laws on the same subject matter.
Finally, the Revised Statutes OF 1870 declare
how commitments shall be drawn up. In this
| state. no imprisonment being authorized unless
| by virtue OF . warrant OF commitment, and the
| statute being OF criminal nature, and therefore
to be strictly construed 1t is OF great Importance
| that it's bearing upon this division Of the discus
| sion should be fully estfua ted
| Section 1913 Of the Revised Statutes reads
| every magistrate committing any person te
prieon shall make out commitment, which shal M
| be signed by him, ordering the sheriff to keer
| the person accused 10 safe and sure custody, unit
delivered by due course of law, aud sbsll sub
stantially set forth the nature OF the offsnse O
which such person 10 accused, which commitment
shall be sufficient warrant and justification to the
sheriff or mis- deputy for the detention and impris
onment OF the party go charged"
compliance with this sec ton requires tha
| the commitment should--frst, contain the ma ms
OF the prisoner; second, order the sheriff e
keep the accused in SAFE and sure custody unit
delivered by due course of law third, eubstan
TALLY set forth the nature of the ofense charged
aud, fourth, be signed by the magistrate. A
iailurs strictly TO follow the statute in any one ol
these four essential particu ars Gas IT, for in
stance, the commitment ordered some person
other than the Sheriff to keep the accused IN Gus
tody) would render the nittimus Insufficient
and the detention Of the prisoner unauthorized
| Summing up the argument relative to the righ
to imprison ia the Workh,use, we find that this
only act authorizing the erection OF worknousea
was passed in 1911; that the act gran ed csrtsin
powers, in this regard, to "the Council OF eaet
municipality" swithin their respective limits,
that it vested the municipalities with the powers
OF police juries that it intended that tbs work
houses should be used as the parish iails within
the respective limits Of the several municipa
| ties, ana required the parish treasurer to pay
| 37b cents per day for the maintenance OF each
prisoner confined therein.
There Is no proof that any one OF the three
municipalities OF the city OF New Orleans ever
erected workhouse under the provisions OF the
act, and, therefore, their control ana regulation
could not be continued in The consolidate ed city
government The powers vested in the munich
palities we're repealed beyond doubt in 1862, and
still more positively in 1856 in the FIRST instance
by the act consolidating the city OF New Orleans
aud In the other by the act amendatory thereto
| The act No. 100 of 1855, defining and Furnishing
vagrancy, repeating all former laws on the same
subject matter, repealed the act Of f54i. The
statute OF 1852, making each sheriff the keeper o.
| the public jails of his parish, would have given tt
the sheriff OF Orleans exclusive control over the
warehouses; contemplated by he act OF 1871, had
any been built. The later statutes Of 1870 make
ii fatal error to commit prisoners to the custody
| IT any officer other than The sheriff Lastly, had
the act OF l5ll continued unaffected by subse
quent legislation, it would be unconstitutional be-
cause it created new offeDse without, in the
title, mentioning such to be one OF the objects o
: the act.
Having ascertained that act 100 of 1866 is CON
stitu ionsl, but cannot be enfoi ced by imprison
| ment in the O ty worB-house, the oGly remaining
inquiry is whether the penal law therefore be-
comes imperative. The Supreme COURT OF this
State held that the Legislature cannot be con
sitered to be guilty Of the absurdity of enaciing
| laws for the protection Of life and property with
out furnishing the means Of bringing offenders
to justice. Courts must presume that 1t was IN
| tended to give effect to those laws, and to pro
vide means for their enforcement, adequate te
| the ends which were in view. Applying under
this construction Of our laws the statute adopting
the common law OF England in the method o
trial, the rules of evidence, and all other pro
ceedings whatsoever OF q criminal nature, W.
| find the common law as laid down by Archbold
1 TO involve these principles:
| /. "If statute enjoin an act to be done with
out assigning any punishment for the not dong
of it, there an indictment will lie for dlsobeyinf
the ipiunctions Of the statute" 2. "If statute
forbid the doing Of thing without assig ing any
punishment for it. the doing OF it wilfully is al
indictable offense, and punishable as common
law msdemeanor.'' Practice and Pleadings
pages and 4.
vagrancy, as laid down by Blackstone in thu
quotation already recited. IS a common Law
offsnse, and the rule Of Interpretation just gel
forth may not be considered inspplicabe Il
off nses Of this character. There is no need
however. to turn to the common law to secure
the enforcement OF the statute. Section 1913 d
the Revised statutes is portion OF the same &C
as section 934. and the two sections of the &C
must be construed together. In other words
the laws Of the State make it an offense agains
it's police regulations to be guilty OF vagrancy
and require that persoss accused Of crime should
be committed to the custody Of the sheriff. Re
corders OF the city OF New Orleans are authorized
to enforce the city ordinances and the State
statutes amounting to police regulations by i'm
posing fine not exceeding twenty dollars, Oh
in default of payment by imprisonment not ex
ceedng thirty days. In other words, the nature
and limit OF the punishment for vsgrancy anc
all other offences against the police and good
| order Of the city la q fine of twenty dollars o.