Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1849-06-01
"The Successor of Judge BrOugh."

Under this caption the Ohio Statesman pub
fishes TRADE, of half a column in length-a
lamentation Rs pathetic as that of Rachel. The
burden of the editors grief is that the successor
Of Judge BrOugh, and his associates, may, in
the discharge of their judicial duties, feel bound
TO remove Mr., E. G. Roll from the office of
Clerk Of The Court Common Pleas of Hamilton
county. Emancipation of close contest atthe
coming election, and the expiration of certain
contracts (or State printing, such a removal
might have "a very deleterious influence upon
the future. prospects of the editor--it might even
knock his dreams of munificence into cooked
hat; burevenatthis expense-even atthe expense
Of greater midhaps--if public good, if justice,
il observance of law, il constitutional require.
ments, ,Iif theipurity of the elective franchise,
demand the removal of Mr.. Roll, let it be done,
and that'auickY.
Personally, we know nothing Of Mr.. Roll;
bu. that atlhe'took upon himself to decide ques.
tion beyond This jurisdiction--a question vested
in anotheraribunal--a question wholly foreign
to the duties Of his ofice-is fact which we
do know-4a fact which the editor of the States
man, n.giving vent to his pent up wrath, indi-
reclly admits. Knowing this; knowing that he
has transcribed the duties of his office--that
he was not governed by the express letter of the
law--.hat he arbitrarily took upon himself to
say Wharf.-The law should be- we must look upon
him as "a dangerous officer, and fully believe
that the public good--the purify Of our inslitu-
tons, demand his removal.
But says The Statesman, the decision of Mr..
Roll, ''onan appeal to the Legislature, by con.
test, was approved by the only power having
the authority TO reverse it," Even were this
strictly true; how would it justify Mr.. Rolll-
If an act were wrong in itself; how would the
recognition of it make it right! How is an act
less wrong, when sanctioned by the Legislature,
than il was before it was so sanctioned? View
itas we may, we cannot regard the act as less
Ueprehensible in the one case than in the other.
But did the Legislature sanction the decision
Of Mr.. RoIl Though the Locofocos who con.
trOlled its actions paid little regard to justice or
law--to constitutional obligations or public in.
terests; though their constant aim and great eff.
fort tOas political aggrandizement; though the
wantonness Of many Of their movements was
very palpable, we will do them the honor 10 say
that they did not sanction the "decision" Of the
Clerk of theHamilton county Court of Common
Pleas. True, they admitted members to seats
who presented certificates from the Clerk, made
out contrary to law; but when the law itself
came UP in review, upon motion 10 repeal the
clause in contention, the Legislature deliberate.
ly sustained the law--deliberateIy justified its
provisions--deliberately condemned the "deci.
sion" of Mr.. Boil.
But we do not regard the approval or con-
demnation as of much consequence. If it had
been approved itOnlywould have proved that the
Legislature was no less corrupt than the clerk.
As it stands the clerk finds that while his breth-
rem are willing to appropriate to themselves the
emoluments Of his misdeeds, they will not iusti-
fy those misdeeds. In either case, it would in
appearance, much resemble what might take
place on trial, where the prisoner at the bar
was under examination for theft, and the jury
emPannelled was composed Of his compatrios
in crime.
The only question to be decided is, did the
Clerk, in making cut the certificates, go acccOr.