The evening light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1881-1883, 1882-05-13

because ne mas Deen hiHpooHHo ~ ~ NA>'
it is the affair of the people. Here is what
Judge Munroe said at the reading of the rule
to punish for contempt:
Judge Munroe said that the only question proper
ly before the court in the trial Of this rule was ev-
dence as to the character Of the publication whi
had been charged to have been made since the IS
suance of the writ Of injunction. his court would
proceed to inquire whether the injunction was IS
sued upon whom it served, and what facts had
TRANSFERRED since that time Whether the injunction
was rightly or wrongly issued was matter which
would be determined upon the trial OF the lnJunc-
ton Ifeyery man against whom an injunction was
issued had the authority to determine the consttu-
tlona power of the court by which tire injunction
W $ issued the court mi ght as well be closed and
each individual be possessed with the authority to
determine for himself when and where and In what
manner he will obey the mandate of the court
There ore the return which has been made Goes not
meet the question and is an insufficient return
Judge Munroe here gives away the freedom
Of the press, pulls away the foundation on
which it stands. A man never is, and cannot
be bound by wrong judicial act. The pro-
position is, upon its face, absurd. If man
datory do an act which his power of attorney
does not warrant he is, himself alone, re-
sponslble. Tha, legal principle could not be
there without being everywhere else. Law is
an association of cooperative principles.
All diversities arise from the application OF
them, and are considerable only on accoun.
of the mistakes of those in the situation of
Judge Munroe-not on account of the law
makers. 1t does not require professional
lawyer to recognize or discuss them, but a
legal or logical perception. If Judge Munroe,
or Rightor, does any act not warranted by the
constitution, which is his mandate or power
of attorney, it is MT binding upon any one
in the world, and the commonwealth, whose
mandate it is, is not answerable for it. BY a
fiction of law Judge Munroe, or Rightor, too,
is not answerable. Every one against whom
the act is done has authority to determine its
const .utionality for himself. All difficulty
lies in the fact that he takes the risk of error
he must have his right recognized and affirmed
b. supreme authority, which also derives, as
he does, and as the judge in the first instance
does, its right from the constitution. There
fore, if it is certain that the injunction against
the "Mascot' was wrongfully issued, the
publishers were not bound to obey it. Yet
Judge Mrnroe said that question was not
properly before him.
II an officer proceed to arrest another for
crime, actually committed by him, in man.
ner not authorized by law, as without a war
rant, he may be lawfully killed, if necessary
to prevent the arrest. The party may consli-
tute himself Judge of the constitu'ionality of
the proposed arrest and is under no risk but
that of making mistake respecting it. So if
the officer have warrant that is not legal foI
any cause, as not being signed by the proper
authority, or not being in legal
form, or not containing the seal of the
court if it have seal, he may be killed il
necessary. If Judge Rightor's Injunction was
without constitutional warrant the publishers
of the "Mascot" not only had the right to dis,
| regard it but to resist its forcible execution to
the last extremity. We repeat that they ran
only the risk Of not being sustained by the su-
prem- judicial authority in their resistance
These are legal principles, the only trouble
is that communities and courts lack the
honesty, capacity and courage to be governed
by them.
But the proceedings of Judges Rightor and
Munroe in this case not likely to be maintained
by the supreme court of Louisiana. If they
be there is no free press in that state and wha
are called the liberties of the people may be
rated as sham.
Since the above was written we have learned
that the supreme judges of Louisiana have
condemned the judicial outrage committed
under the patronage of two of the civil
district court ju ges, by the Lilliputiar
railroad leviathan, Van Benthuysen. Anc
now that worthy will probably take a turr
through the courts as defendant 1t seems the
Mascot people had been in prison seven days
of the ten when the opinion of the supreme
judges was given. The railroad owner
and operator will make a good figure as de.
fendsnt in fat, jocund civil suit for damages