The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-01-26
Continued from first raxe.

the prayer II the petihtlonn ei,aa ala
n 2 fts u 9
urging that said Testimony. was material to their
case. and arguing that while this method of pro-
cedure was F. unpsual It was nevertheless proper
compel the attendance Of Witnesses, citing In
support Of his position the decision rendered
by Judge Nichols, of the Supreme Court, OF
=, Attorney General Ogden replied. arguing
u he the s sssss Fe ers 81
which -, eSis Ste only for th i, years
Appeals. to review criminal cases. That this
decision was evidently erroneous. being legs-
lative and not judicial In Its character. and was
cause 1t related only to the sending of a com
mission within the State. while this application
is for a ,commisson to go beyond the limits of
badly reasoned, because the judge relied upon
that clause of the constitution Of 1912. which
secures to the prisoner the right to compulsory
because the Legislature had failed to furnish
adequate legislation to carry out this provision
by giving to the criminal courts the. authority
to send its process TO compel the at
tendance of witnesses into all parts of the
State, therefore the court undertook to remedy
within the. limits of the State It could not, on
the reasoning Of the court itself be carried be;
yond those limits, because the constitutional
provision. in execution of which 1t claimed to
be acting, could itself have no extra territorial
effect, being. imperative. outside the State of
Louisiana. The decision is strange one, since
the Judge who renders the decision in bis rea-
soning, states the fact that the provision in
particular, evil existing under. the English
common law. in It's early history, which
was the denial Of the right to compul-
even to hear them when there Having shown
that this decision was not authority. and could
not supply the want OF saute. and that the
this state In the. absence of express statutory
provision, he challenged the counsel on the
other side t9 produce single case II the whole
they pretended to in this case was sustained.
and also called upon them to produce single
couris In this State to send q Commission while
calling their attention to the express sta ute
comforting such power upon the civil courts.
erguing that oil proceedings In this State. the
manner of taking testimony. and the rules Of
evidence are governed by the common law rule
which became a part of the law of England. and
governs in this country as part Of that law. the
prisoner had the same An right to procure testi-
before the court that the State had. and no
more.
That there was nostatute in Louisiana author
izing commission 10 take testimony in erin
inal cases. That If the defendants had any
right they must claim 1t under that article of the
constitution Of Louisiana giving the prisoner
the right to have compulsory process to compel
the attendance of witnesses before the court
This article OF. the constitution, however. ap-
confer no right beyond the State limits. That
II was held that courts would never do q vain
thing, and, inasmuch as 1t had been frequently
decided that the courts would not grant CON
tinuance to obtain test mony out of the State
1t would be vain thing to grant this motion.
Mr.. gastellanos. of counsel for the, defense.
n mi hn had rirvht ~ /.
brought face to face with the Witnesses. That
the common law should be construed consist
emily With The oonstintion Of The United States
that 1t was the first time he had ever heard the
authority of decision of the Court of Errors
and Appeals questioned; that 1t was a court of
final jurisdiction In criminal cases, competent
not only to maintain its own jurisdiction, but to
review. revoke or annul the findings Of lower
courts. He argued that there was hiatus in
the constitution Of 1879, and that hiatus was
filed by t Is decision.
Mr.. Castellanos proceeded at some length to
press. the. point of the right of the accused to
denied any lack of due diligence on the part OF
Judge Whitaker, at the conclusion of the ar
| gument, overruled the motion for commits
| sion.
OF trial. on the ground that 1t was in the inter-
est OF public justice, and that the State was en-
| titled thereto AS matter of right.
The court then adjourned to o'clock D. m. y.
when the prisoners will be brought Into court
| and the case proceed upon its merits, Judge
| Whitaker discharging the Jury to appear at
| that hour.
A little after O'Clock the Judge took his seat
| on the bench, and the Observation-Disclosures
| Wells, Casanave and demonstrating failed to
| appear. the principals and sureties were called
| to appear, according to law. at the door Of the
| coutt. and upon their falling to make appear
| anee Attorney General Ogden moved that their
bonds should be declared forfeited. which was
granted by the court Alias capiases we're then
ordered to be issued by the court for the rear
rest of the accused, and It was declared by the
court that in case they were arrested they would
be released upon giving bonds in the sum orig
inaly fixed that Ia 5000 for each. The court
thereupon adjourned,
1t was thought that a writ Of certiorari would
be asked for and issued from the United States
Circuit Court. but this did not happen.
| The Sheriff has appointed a number of extra
deputies, whose mission it is to arrest the arch
enemies of the State. Wells Anderson Casanave
and Kenner, and wherever they may be found
they will be secured and lodged in the Parish
Prison until they find new bondsmen. SO mote
it bel There is no telling what the morrow may
bring forth. The Returning Boarders are sure
ly playn>, some sort of game, as we under
stand they are now ensconced in the sanctuary
of the Custom House. and will not issue there
from until they are ready to make now point
| for salvation from the Penitentiary.
- -