The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-12-04
JUDICIAL, IMBROGLl0.

In the matter Of the conflict Of jurisdiction
bet ween tho Recorder Of tho Second Municipal
Court and the Judge Of the Superior Criminal
Court, growing out OF the release by tho lat
ter ii two peraons Imprisoned by the former
on the charge Of creating disturbance and
Destroying Anti Ring tickets on the day OF
tho election II occurs to us that Recorder
Mttnnherner entertains rather extraordinary
views nf hs powera and that his p0aition ts
altogether untenahIe, The two men, II appears,
were arrested and taken before tho Recorder.
who refnned TO accept bail and committed
them al euee u priaon. Application was
made to Judge Whitaker for a writ OF
haheaa corpus, which was granted. and tho
priaonnra were released on ball. the offcnne
bana clearly ballahIo. It In difficult 30
see why tho Recorder ahould have refused
tho prisoners tho privilege which was I'M
eattonahly theira. nf giving ball for their
appearance. II was case In which to our
mind the magistrate had no right to refuse,
ball, and the denial 81 that right. and tho linear
ceration of tho praoners under the circr'a-
stanooa waa certainly an unjustitlahle act. We
believe there Ia no statute Furnishing the de-
structinn ~ tleketa In an election. 40 that nj
moet tho parties were only chargeable with
creating n disturbance or malicious mischief.
and II aeema rather high handed proceeding
IN magistrate to take II upon himself TO say
that such ofreuaea arc not bailahle. or rather
TO deny to parties charged Herewith tho
privilege Of ball even for a day. Judge
whitaker did perfectly right 10 release the
prisoners on bond and restore them to lib
erty for hts court II ono OF competent iuris-
dIction and II was established before him
that they were unjuatly deprived OF their
liberty.
In Recorder Miltenberger's remarks upon
tho re arrest Of tho two parties on Tho same
charge he evnced angular lack Of informa-
ton In regard to the rights and powers Of The
Judge of the Superior Criminal Court. His
assumption Of injured dignity, aud hla decla-
ration of war against Judge Whitaker for
praaumng to Interfere with the jurisdiction
OF HE court will strike the average mind as
somewhat amusing, considering tho fact that
tho Superior Criminal Court has supervisory
powers over his court, and, being q dlatriet
court. has power under the law to Issue writa
Of hubeds corpus But. aside from tho ques-
tiou Of Jurisdiction IL will DO remembered
that Judge MiItenherger was candidate
upon the Anti Ring ticket; his name was upon
thevery tickets that were claimed to have been
destroyed BY the men before him, and yet
hc did not hesitate TO sit In Judgment IN .
case In which he had u direct personal inter-
eat. 1t appears to us that this was especially
an occasion when q Judge should have ro-
cused himself and called his assistant to alt In
his place We suspect that In this whole
matter Judge Miltenberger has insensthly
permitted his personal feelings to influence
him. and that In the excitement incident to
the election, IN which he was candidate, he
did not enjoy that calm judicial frame Of
mind 40 necessary In a magistrate.
The act for which the parties were arrested
Il one that. II proved, should be punished So
verely, and II no statute exists touching
specially upon II. then there is something
wanting IN the law.