The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-05-08
THE "MASCOT" AFFAIR IN NEW
ORLEANS.

THE "MAsCOT" AFFAIR IN NEW
ORLEANS.
We have not such particulars of the Mascot
affair, in New Orleans, as to justify us in utter
ing very positive opinions upon it. But we
yet entertain no doubt that the proceedings
against that paper are unwarantable.
We first question naturally asked is, why
the publishers of the Mascot published an
article against Van Benthuysen with the order
enjoining them from doing so in their hands?
Our opinion is that they were justified in do
ing it. Van Benthuysen had all the week to
apply for his injunction, but only did SO on
Friday, undoubtedly after the edition had
gone through the press, and when it was quite
too late for the publishers to obtain hearing
on the merits of the injunction before the
time of publication. Indeed, the application
being made on Friday it was quite likely the
order was not served till next morning. But
that is not important. 1t is principle of law
everywhere, is contained in the Civil Code of
Louisiana and runs all through its jurisprud
ence, that no man shall have advantage from
his own wrong. There is. no doubt that this
vicious purpose of the complainant struck the
order with invalidity. Next it is the express
and repeated ruling of the Supreme Court of
Louisiana that no such order shall issue with
out Rule first taken upon the patty who is
to be restrained, to show cause why it should
not issue. No such rule was taken.
Again, the grounds set out in the affidavit,
as published, to-wit that the Mascot "is H.
bellous and scurillous sheet, and subsists by
pandering to the low tastes of that class who
take pleasure in seeing the honorable reputa-
ton of useful citizens besmirched," and that
the Mascot "had published libellous cartoon
referring to affiant as a trickster," are no
grounds whatever for such Injunction. Nor
would be if he had sworn, besides, that he
was apprehensive that the libellous sheet
would cartoon, or in any manner libel him
again, as he did not do. 1t seems clear that
the order Of injunction for these causes, too,
should not have been granted.
The law had provided for Mr.. Van Benthuy-
sens case by making the act of libel crimi-
nal offence. He could have arrested the pub
fishers and prosecuted them for libel on the
appearance Of each cartoon. II that remedy
was not enough it was the fault of the law, and
and Mr.. V. B. should have gone to the Legis-
lature and not to the courts. But, at his
worst, he did not pretend to have any right to
prevent the publication OF that Saturdays
Mascot which is what he maliciously sought
to do, and would have done if the order had
been obeyed. 1t is not possible that the pub
fishers of the Mascot can be amenable to pun
ishment for not permitting the order to have
that effect. Yet they were obliged to permit
it to have that effect or disregard it. We are
of opinion that it is not possible that Judge
Rightor could have felt legally justified in is
suing the order, and we can see the act in no
other light than as an act of usurpation and
injury.
Now. on the question Of contempt, another
Judge tor some cause presided. 1t is not
usual, and in case, like this, of doubtful ex-
ercise of judicial power, does not look we'll.
The case was probably assigned after granting
the order Of injunction, but it should have
been assigned to the Judge who granted it.
Judge Minroe is the ablest jurist on the Civil
District Court benches. Was great ability in
request in this case? 1t seems strange to US
that the parties did not purge themselves upon
oath of the contempt and show the undeniable
legal grounds that existed for disregarding the
order. The Judge was not to be supposed
aware when he issued the order that its effect
would be very different from that designed,
and of vital injury to the defendants. When
such was shown to be the case and the de-
PENDANTS swore that that fact was the sole
cause of their disregarding the order, and that