Year: 1859


The MOST ARBITRARY AND IsExcusABLE ACT OF
any Recorder or committing magistrate within our
recollection, was perpetrated yesterday by Recorder
Witt, OF the Second District .-~.
In Yesterdays Crescent we mentioned the nature Of
the charge brought against the Chief Of Police, Mr.
Thomas E. Adams, by the said Recorder, the sub
stance of the charge being that the Chief had COM
mtted contempt Of the Recorders authority in re-
leasing from the Second District lookup, at late
hour of Monday night, several young gentlemen who
had been arrested by the police on charge of dis
turbing the peace we also mentioned that respecta
bic citizen friend of the parties arrested, went first
to the Recorders residence and being unable to OBJ
tain an interview with him. went next to the Chief OF
Police, and after giving that officer satisfactory as
surance that the prisoners would appear before the
Recorder at the proper hour in the morning, obtained
from him an order for the release Of the said prison
ers. We also mentioned that the prisoners, being re-
leased, did appear before the Recorder at the ap-
pointed hour, and were dealt with according to the
trfing nature Of the charge brought against them
and that the Recorder ncensed at the Chief Of Police
for allowing the prisoners to enjoy their beds home,
instead of keeping them ncarcerated in the cells Of
the lookup, (and this after he had refused to listen
the application Of the friend Of the prisoners in their
behaf) issued warrant for the arrest of the Chief
for contempt of his authority.


Chief Adams having surrendered himself, knowing |
that the warrant was out against him, appeared in
Court yesterday at the appointed hour, o'clock, to
await the ISSUE Quite crowd Of people was present,
composed principally Of the Chiefs personal friends
and others who aware Of his energy, ability,
and general efficiency as the head police officer Of
New Orleans all surprised at the nature Of the
charge brought against him. and all anxious to hear
how the Recorder could substantiate justify the
charge.


Judge NJ. NJ. Reynolds appeared as counsel for the
Chief. When the Recorder, after some delay, ap.
peared and took his seat, Mr.. Reynolds opened the
case by asking for the policebook, in which was en-
tered the arrest of the parties for the release of whom
the Chief was up on the charge OF contempt. He
read the entries showing that the parties had been
arrested simply for breach Of the peace, for which,
as also entered on the book, the Recorder had fined
| them IS EACH


He then set forth that at the time of the release Of
the prisoners they not under the Recorders ju
risdcton not having been arrested by his order, or
any official order Of his Court that the Chief would
have been amenable to the charge Of contempt only


in the event of his releasing the prisoners after they
had been arrested the Recorders warrant, after
they had been arraigned and disposed of by the Re-
corder He spoke at some length upon the discretion
and humane feeling, which have to be exercised, and
have always been exercised by the police in the dis
charge of their duty that when they had occasion to
arrest men whom they knew and whom they knew
to be permanent and respectable citizens, that they
could find at any time, even if the charge were a
little more grave than that of disturbance of the
peace they at liberty to exercise the discretion
of taking them to their residences instead Of the


dirty cells of the lookup upon their parole to appear
before the Recorder in the morning.


He argued that this had been discretion long &C


corded to the police, and that it sanctioned BY
the general sentiment Of the community. In frock
ing holiday times, like the present Mardi-gras,


great many good men were liable to get over.fnl o
liquor, and make more noise on the street and con


duct themselves in more boisterous manner thar
might be tolerated by the police regulations. 1t wa
perfectly right that the police should arrest all par


ties in the slightest degree offending the regulations
but it was equally right that after arresting such par
ties, and recognizing them to be wellknown and re


sponsble citizens, to be found at any tme-mel


above linching from far graver charges than that
= disturbing the peace-t was proper not only on tn


part of the arrestng officer to take his parole for ap


pearance before the Recorder, but of the Lieutenan


or Chief of Police to release him upon his recogniz


ance to appear.


e The parties arrested in this case were well know
to and responsible. gentleman of responsibilit
ID called upon the Chief of Police at late hour of th


night, and stating that he had called upon the R,


corder, but found him not at home, had cae


upon the Chief, offering every assurance that h
friends, if released, would appear before the Reco


der in the morning. The Chief, in the exercise


his authority as head of the police and responsible


officer of all the lockups, gave release for the prso


ers. They were released, and proved who they wei
= by appearing punctually in Court next morning an
Y submitting themselves to the Recorders orders.


Mr. Reynolds further brought forth, that th discr


ton Of the Chief of Police in the present case ha
:" been authorized and sustained by Mayor Crossma
ne Mayor Lewis and Mayor Waterman, as well as no
te by Mayor Stith; and produced document, issued
~ the previous Mayor Mr.. Waterman, dec claring IL
lockups of the city, and all the prisoners therein


solely and exclusively under the control of the Chi
w of Police the prisoners until the time of their


raignmeut before the Recorder This document W


signed by three of the Recorders then in office. I


spoke of the responsibility of the Chiefs position.
10 man, erroneously upjusty arrested by polio
ST. man. could not obtain his release for the night up


satisfactory bonds to appear before the Recorder,
ile tshould appear before the Recorder that the
IN was for little nothing, his apt to be


suit for damages against the Chief and the arrest
,p officer for false Imprisonment. The recent case
1,r which the Chief was sued for $3O0O for failing


liberate man whom his subordinate officers had
re- rested enormously, was cited. Mr.. Reynolds tn


proceeded to state that the Chief could not have be
RS guilty of contempt from the fact that the friend
the prisoners did not call upon the Chief till after
in had found the Recorder to be inaccessible and
about to introduce this gentleman to prove the ia
Of when the Recorder interrupted him, saying that
lid hearing that point unnecessary, his
were under orders not to allow him to be disturb
de-. after certain hour at night.


Mr., Reynolds concluded by asserting that in the
sent case the Chief of Police had simply acted in
ny cordance with the routine of his ordinary duty;
S. had intended contempt ofthe Recorders author
,f and had not committed contempt, for the reas
- that the prisoners had not been arrested by any or


Of the Court, and had been released before com
1R under his jurisdiction by being arragned before
3, No order or action Of the Court whatever had b.
n,s; violated; therefore, there could be contempt
m M court.
,on The Recorder then stated his case, first tax
and some credit to himself for the patient manner
,ET, which he had listened to Mr.. Reynolds argum