The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1889-06-26
JUDGE BLAcKMAN,s DEFENSE

To he Bunkie Blade
i My attention has been called to the res
olntIons OF the taxpayers mass meeting a
Bunkie, published in your paper. Viii
you please publish my reply.
Holding thu position that do, had TIL
resolutions emanated from an individual
should not have given them any notice
But coming from mass meeting of a
good and respectable men as there are il
Avoyelles Parish, it is duty devolvin:
upon me to answer them
Ny reasons for refusing to sign the in
junction Of Mcssrs. Kimbro, Hudson ant
others, were: that the laW did not authoris
! me to grant it, and not because it would bt
discourteous to Judge Coco, for, in justice
to him let Inc say, that he regretted yer,
mach that did not sign the order and lei
| the matter come mp for investigation. But
had Judge Coco joined in with the request
of the petition, my action would have
been the same.
L have before me an almost verbatim
copy ofthe reasons assigned, and which
were written on the face of the petition,
and quote them here In full so every one
may read them,s to-wit: 1.-The allegations
in the petition do not warrant the grant
ing Of an injunction: there is no allega-
ton of any attempted injury to the person
or property of plaintiffs, nor any attempt
by the Police Jury to deprive them of any
liberty or right that belongs to them as
citizens; nor that the Police Jury is about
to levy and collect from them any tax, H.
legally Or otherwise; nor that the Police
Jury was diverting any funds belonging
to the Parish to the payment of debt to
their injury, as they do not allege that
they are creditors Of the Parish for any
amount: there is no allegation of any sum
in dispute, between the plaintiffs person.
ally and the Police Jury, which would
give jurisdiction to the District Court"
These were my reasons, which the mass
meeting declared to be frivolous and not
borne out by facts" Who is to Judge OF
the legality Of these reasons Messrs
kimbro, Heard and other interested par
ties, or the Judge who is totally disnter-
estcd, and under his oath to do his duty
and obey the law
The law not only gives the power but
requires the Judge to determine, whether
the reasons alleged for an injunction or
any other judicial order. are such as to
authorize HIM in granting it, and does
not leave this decision to the litIgants
themselves.
The petition was presented to me by an
attorney on the 2Sth day Of May, on Tues
day, and he stated that the Police Jury
would not be in session until the follow
ing Monday. When l refused to grant
the injunction | told the attorney that |
would accept service of petition for
manaamus, would waive time and legal
delays, and if my reasons assigned were
not considered sufficient by the Circuit
Judges a peremptory mandate would issue
compelling me to grant it, which order |
would gladly obey. In one day the Cir
cult Judges could have been reached, as
they live in Lafayette and New Iberia.
From them writ Of prohibition could
have been obtained, prohibiting the Pc
lice jury from acting until they had time
TO determine, whether my reasons for re-
fuSing the mandamus were "frivolous and
not borne ont by the facts" and it seems
to me had been so deeply interested in
preventing the Police Jury from acting
and greet and irrerarable injury was
about to DE inflicted on me, or my proper
ty, as alleged by petitioners, that should
have applied to the highest judicial tri-
bunal, whose duty it was to compel Dis
trlct Judges to grant relief to lt"ants
when improperly rcfu ed. The more
promptly wonld l have applied to them
had considered the reasons frivolous or
not borne ont by the facts" Instead of
t he usual and legal mode of procedure the
litigants abandoned the law, created a
new conft of appeals, mass meeting,
which court, although composed of many
good and intelligent men are not learned
III the law nor under an oath of office.
and interested 10 the result of the litira
ton, nine-tcnths Of whom perhaps had
never read the petition nor nv reason;
yet the new conrt Of appeals pronounced
Il decree that my refusal to grant an in
junction to five or six litigants in Avoy-
Giles Parish was Revolutionary, acithoEt
precedent, and calculated to lead 10 riolence
nd nlaQfM acts Of the pcoplc.D What
more revolutionary than these proceed
ngs! What more calculated to lead to
violence than the destroying of all regard
for law and courts of justice, bringing
INTO contempt and rdicule the JUDGE
whose sworn duty it is to uphold and en-
force it The Judge is not above the law.
Ii they are guilty of eXtortion or oppres-
sion III office they are subject to indict-
nent and prosecution therefor. IF guilty
Of high crimes and misdemcanors in office
.hey sre subject to impeachment by the
Legislature and removal from office. If|
hey render judgments, grant or refuse to
grant illegal orders, litigants are protect
ID by an appeal, or by other legal rene
lies, and thus there is Il legal remedy for
very wrong. If the litigants failed to
pursue their legal remedy it was not the
ault Of the Judge. The law requires
'udgcs tie grant injunctiono and other or
lers but it requires litigants to present
petition containing such reasons us would
the relief.
But without arguing any law ques-
ion, l shall give one of the numerous
decisions of the Supreme Court on the
uhject, and hope that the reasons will
lot be considered frivolous" In &c
An., page 1856, taxpayer of Concor-
liza Parish enjoined the tax collector
rom levying Or collecting any further
axes to pay the interest on certain il
egal bonds amounting to thousands of
ollars, which the Police Jury of the
'arish issued. The Supreme Court
aid: "The first question presented is
n exception to the jurisdiction of the
ourt below, the interest of the plain
if being less than five hundred dol
ars. He alleges that his annual Par
III tax amounts to some four hundred
ollars, and large portion thereof is
equired to pay interest accruing annu-
lily on the bonds in question. As to
he right to anuul or enjoin the bonds
this proceedings, he has no greater