The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-04
JUDGE WHITAKER'B DECISION.

the Salny case, IN which nc maintains his
right to review and revise the decisions of q
Recorders court. and suatans the oonstitrl-
tionality of act No. .. Is It's ''assumedness -
His reasoning Is able and conclusive. but he
| follows throughout the deductive method. and
the value Of his conclusions depends entirely
upon tho truth or falsity Of the promises
He assumes that he has jurisdiction and gives
us syIogism; he assumes that Kelly had n
right to apply for the writ, but In this
instance he spares us tho syllogsm; no as
sumes that act No. Q is constitutional. and
straightway becomes sylI0gIstic again. stat
| ing his proposition about In this way:
Judge Houston's decision in the Agosti
hnbeGa corpus case Ia wrong; Judge Houe-
ton says act No. Q Is unconstitutional: there
fore act No. Q is constitutional, and so hold
Here are his major and miner premises and
his conclusion, and we all know that
| it is rule Of logic that, If the prem
| ises arc not true, and the aylogism
| is regular. the reasoning is valid and
| the conclusion, whether truN or false Ia cor
reCtly derived. If Judge Whitaker had re-
versed the machine and argued no to his
premises as ably as he has argued FROM
them, it might bo difficult to refuto his
reasoning.
His first syllogIem may he stated in this
wise: Judge MItenbergcr's court Is an in
ferior court of criminal jurisdiction. The de-
csons Of all courts of inferior jurisdiction
can he revised by the Supreme Court and
the act creating my court gives II powers
equal To those of the Supreme Court: Er0o.
| have the right TO review Judge MilConber-
gers decision in the case Mt issue.
Now, thore can be nothing more perfect than
this process Of reasoning. The logic Is fault
less and. whether the promise is true or not.
the conclusion Is properly reached But SUD
pose tho premise is destroyed then what be-
comes of the conclusion The question, then
Is simply-ls Judge MiItNnborger's court an
inferior court in its relations TO the SUPERIOR
Criminal Court This is the only proposf-
ton that has to be COntrOvertGd in order TO
prove Judge Whitaltors decision an emptv
aud worthless sOphism. superior court Is
All appellate court. An inferior court Is one
from which an appeal lies. II no such rela-
tionS as these exist between the Superior
Criminal Court and the recorders courts
then neither can be- in legal intent. inferior or
superior to the other. You may say. In ord-
nary estimation, that this or that court
is Of superior dignity and power, but if
one have no appellate jurisdiction over
the other, If their powers are separate, dis
tinCt and peculiar, the one Is In legal con-
temptation and within its own peculiar juris-
dictiOn the equal Of the other. In short, the
only way to determine tho inforiority of one to
the other is by the relations resulting from the
f,,Fr H..
incd in which an appeal lies from the rcCor-
ders' courts to the Superior Criminal Court?
We are sure not. and therefore the recorders
courts are not inferior to that court under the
law The assumption, them of Judge Whit
aSor that they are inferior courts is entirely
false and untcnabI0.
In his decision judge Whitaker confcsscg
that his court has no appellate Jurisdiction
over the recorders courts -" its Jurisdiction
and powers are defined and circumscribcd bv
the act which called it into cxistcncc. II can
try and punish accused parties only in those
cases which are enumerated In the first sec
ton of act lN Of 1874. Tho affirmative de-
Scription of its jurisdiction to try and punish |
offenScs imph"S an c.rcImaiOn Of ann Other
jurisdiction for the trial and punishment Of
offcnscS"
This is n correct statement of the law, and .
1t only remains to say that the section re- |
fcrred to In the act Of 1874 confers no appel |
late jurisdiction over the recorders courts in
any case whatever. But, says the learned .
Judge, this same act also gives to the Supe-
r1or Criminal Court "all the powers and du-
ties of court of highest criminal iurisdic-
ton at common law" The court Of the high
est criminal jurisdiction in this State is the
Supreme Court and this clause makes the .
powers of the Superior Criminal Court equal |
in such matters to those of that court If this .
were true there would be no appeal from this .
court to the Supreme; if this were so he
could assume, under the constitution, to hear
appeals direct from the court in which they
originated in cases in which a forfeiture or
penalty imposed by municipal .
corporation shall be in condensation.
The claim is too absurd for
argument. But, says he, for the purposes of
this atrial my court has jurisdiction equal to
that of the Supreme Court, and Supreme
Court has power at common law to review
the proceedings of all inferior tribunals; to
pass upon the jurisdiction of such tribunals,
and to review all legal decisions made by
hem" and CertiOrGri is the regular process
lnder which such errors are to be examined
and corrected.
The decision then proceeds to draw "a
broad distinction between jurisdiction to try
/ cause and power to issue certain orders
herein" Supreme Courts have the right to
'evew the proceedings of inferior courts and
BASS upon their jurisdiction even in cases
where there is no appeal, by certiorari. But,
rs we have shown, the recorders courts are
lot courts inferior to the Superior Criminal
md, besides, in the issue of those
wits which have no relation to the
rial and punishment Of Offenses. the liLnita-