The Yazoo Democrat., 1853-03-16
Sharon, Miss, March 4lh, 1853.

/ DcCuuec We Scc pEOIGL ~ duufe6S you through
the medium of newspaper. You should re-
member that adventitious circumstances the en-
thusiasm of our people in their struggle for the
Union. elevated you to position for which YOU
were wholly unqualified b. natural ability or
legal learning. Sometimes weak men, after ma
king remarkable display of folly, shelter hem
selves from the censure of outraged people
by pleading goodness Of intention" We eshall
not suffer you so to escape us. Before we are
done with you, even if yor should be dull enough
to deem it flattering, yet we think some of your
wiser friends would blush, if we, should call you
=" the good Chancellor Scott" In the case of II.
: A. johnson vs. The State of Mississippi, your
late decision is before us. We shall not have TO
travel far beyond the facts there developed III
our opinion to form proper estimate OF the
conduct of the Z" Chancellor" or of the legal va
lidty of his . decree" You say that a grave
and important question is involved In this case,'
and that .'as early as lS4l you expressed an opin
ion on it as an attorney at laW." What mean
you BY this language? Are TO understand
that you were consulted by bond-holders. and
upon full investigation. declared as attorney
| that you deemed the State legally liable to pay
the Union Bank Bonds? Ii this be your mean
ing we would ask if you not attempting to
throw around yourself an undue importance by
declarations of this sort? In l64l no stranger
would certainly have ever thought of consulting
gou on this grave and important question,
unless it was somehow managed to pack you in
among more able attorneys. But if at that time
YOU were so packed in and did declare an opinion,
what right had you as = Chancellor" to assume
| Jurisdiction in the same, like cause? We
will saw nothing about modesty, for you would
certainly not understand us if we did. We will
not speak about ds'icacy, fora Z" Chancellor" i'm
ported from Tennessee is not apt to trouble
himself much about delicate sensibiitieS. But
| in this case yourself, dull as you are, seem to
| feel something of the alckcardness of your po-
sition when you % called to council the learned
members of the High Court" What right had
you to call on these men or they TO deliver an
opinion on "a matter that might be brought be-
fore them? Can their opinions justify you in
assuming jurisdiction over cause that you had
already decided before any suit had been fled in
your Court Why it requires such men as you
! to disgust US with the administration of Justice
| if in this way the "ermine" is to be kept un-
spotted! Were not all the judicial proceedings
ia this case mere farce What chance had the
State TO defend herself when it was notorious
that you had prejudged the cause Perhaps
you say that under the circumstances s. the law
did not prohibit" your sitting in Judgment
Why what if the law was silent? What if the
Legislature omitted to make any provision for
that kind of case which under he circunstan-
/ I
loitb consent of parties. to have declined" judi
ciauy to inves. igate Did such omission au-
,hori4e you to tnmple over Reason and Com
mon Sense Why did you not cali in these to
the Councip Perhaps they would have taught
you some hing better than dad . the members of
the High Court Under the circums ances'
was there eren common Honesty in your assum-
ing TO condsmn the State. though you had no de-
TO eua1e any responsibility tohich The lG0 had
cast upon gour Court? Could it be right for
you as Judge to decide cause wherein you had
acted as attorney for one of the parties even if
your individual feelings must give way to sense
of public duty and the stern sanctions of the
law ?" If 1t was wrong for you to decide, how
can your decision be legal! We had thought
that there was thing called Morality that some
times might be advantageously referred to in
the Interpretation of law. This fact seems to-
have been overlooked by you as well as by ' the
members of the High Court" when you declared
that g Courts are the mere instruments of the
law" Had you called to your aid sound mo
rality, you certainly could never have concluded
that the attorney of hond-holder could have
no will of his own and was proper person to
decide whether the State was liable to pay
The kind of morality, that allows a man to be
agent for one party and J~dge over the other,
may be current among such laaeyerS as bond
holders like to consult, but the people will GER
tainly repudiate il as they have the payment Of
the Union-Bank Bonds. Let us ask now if men
can have confidence in any homiies you may
preach about what gives ssolidity to the tone
ard tenor of public morals" after you have shown
by your trampling over the plain rules Of com
mon justice, that you pay no attention to your
own7 DO you ask what was to be done when
the bond-holder demanded decision? Can
man, who would keep his conduct, like the vir-
tue required of Casar's wife, above suspicion,
ask such question? Why if he would no,
consent to have continued his cause until
successor was elected who had never given an
opinion, you should have at once resigned. This
would have looked like fair dealing. But this
kind of open-handed nobleness seems never to
have been dreamt of by you. Was it for the
petty object of retaining your salary that you