The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-04-13
MUNICIPAL MATTERS.
ABOUT COUwT POLICEMEN,

Yesterday complaint was lodged with Admin
istrator Diamond against one of the officers of
Recorder Smiths court. An investigation of
the complaint. which is Of the utmost gravity.
was ordered by the Administrator OF Police,
and should the matter ever come up in a for.
NAL manner. it will be reported in full In the
columns of the DEMOCRAT. Our present ref
erence to the case Is due to the discussion to
which it has given rise at the City Hall. ON the
score Of the responsibilities Of these court
officers" and the powers of the recorders over
them under the law. The question has been
the
SUBJECT OF CONTENTION
ever since the act creating the present Record
ers court went into ope, alton, and 1t would
seem that 1t is about time that it should be set
tssf for the purpose should sufficient groupds
be found to make sworn charges against the
officer referred to- In TACT we may even say
part of some Of our officials to bring the mat
Ter before he Police Beard. there TO be sifted
and. II the charges be substantiated. to
DISMISS THE OFFICER
from the police force = be, process may ap
pear very plain and natural one to the ordin-
airy r. ader. but such 1t is not. for with little
effort he will remember that 1t has been said that
law. over the officers appointed to keep order
duties ia their courts. DENYING the right even
81 INC IbIlte DOHTu VI eAHU1lD1UR lUDO lH6 CON
duet of these Off ets. SHOULD any one of them
misbehave himself and Violate the rules gov
elning the Crescent City Police force,
The Recorders base their assumption Of
ABSOLUTE CONTROL
over their court officers or policemen on sec
ton of act No. 1871, which. after referring to
the jurisdiri' n Of the Recorders courts In the
city, of New Orleans says that the Mayor
shall. on t. q sel ection and r. commendatic OF
s eaas Q" the oee who ha iPpo aeaea
TO I On OF order Of e
thereof, and not removable Meret1.om without
the consent of said Recorder"
But this is, the way the law is interpreted by
those who do not agree with the recorders on
their
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LAW:
1T Ia plain that these persons appointed on the
police are policemen and are detailed from the
rec to duty In he courts, ard hence b ing po-
licemen are subject to tn operation of section 3
of act No. IA. which rea Is: The power of try
officers or pdtrolmen is exclusively vested in
said board tof policel' It Is also plain that the
words 'Iemovable Iherefrom IN the act first
from the court under ordinary circumsi ances,
their efficiency and suitability as court officers
being lett entirely to the judgment ofthe Record
ers themselves. But the law maker certainly
never contemplated to deprive the .oard Of Po-
lice Of the right to try one OF its officers for a
violation OF Its rules and 2, to disn iss him from
prive the Judge of the Superior Criminal Court
to send him to the gaows or the Penitentiary;
in which Ia ter case an effectua removal would
take place. And 1t must be observed that no.
where In the law creating the recorders courts
is there any authority vested in the recorders
TO discharge court officer" Should. there
FORE the recorders Interpretation of their "Hb-
lutte control over their officers be good one
then und.r no circumstances. nor in any man.
ner could court offic' r be- removed from the
police force at all-whch is an absurdity The
SPIRIT OF THE LAW
il simply that whilst the officers detailed shall
continue to be amenable to the Police Board for
any derelictiop of duty not strictly within the
direction of the Recorder. nor the chief of
police, nor any other official, shall remove
them from their p, sition as court officers to
place them in the category of the ordinary
patromen on the force. and this in order that
the machinery of the recol der's court shall not
be hammered or interfered with at the will or
whim of u superior officer No MORE"
ANOTHER DISCUSSION
occurred in connection with this same matter.
1t appears that very recently Recorder Smi h
has ass umed the power to discharge two of his
court officers and to appoint two others and.
we are told. without first obtaining for them
commissions from the Mayor. as required by
the law quoted above. We are not informed,
however. whether the Recorder basis his right
to dismiss and appoint court officers on any
other law, and we would like to hear from him
on the Inject