Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1856-04-17

to have any opinion. What little was said
related wholly to the details of the law
Other business came in so pressing, alb
sorbing all our time, that We found it nee
essary to adjourn till Court in course
This was done unanimously. The object
was partly to give time to mature cases
for the next term, but especially to ma
turc the liquor cases. After this adjourn
ment in July there could of course be no
opinion of the Court until the next term
on the fourth Monday in November.
The members Of the Court were at Indi-
annapolis in the latter part of August; but
were not all there at the same time-Judge
Gookins coming the afternoon left So that
Consultation is all that could have taken
place in vacation. At my room Judge Per-
l:ins read some views which had occurred
TO him since the public argument, and which
were afterwards matured and published i'll
!
views | promptly dissented; not doubling
but that on further reflection he would also
abandon them.
Supposing that re-argumcnt could
scarcely fail to conduce to the unanimity of
the Court, proposed that course in Au-
gust During the argument in July, my at
tention was chiefly occupied with the de-
tails. The question of legislative power had
not struck me forcibly. l was therefore
anxious for a re-argument on that single
quesiion-the power of the Legislature TO
pass such law. Itwas question new in
judicial history 1t -eded elucidation and
reflection. Accordingly the second Monda
of November was set and counsel notified.
But for some reason which | never fully
understood, the argument did not come off.
On that very day Judge Perkins opinion
: in the Herman case at Chambers, appeared
in print.
That (the Herman case) was understood
to embody Judge Perkins views. Two
weeks after. Oh the Saturday prior to the
public session, Judge Gookins presented
his opinion in consultation. With that
opinion could not concur, and so intimated.
Up to this time l had no settled opinion of
my own--now staggering under this argu-
ment and then under that. Nor did up to
this time know what Judge Davidson s
views were. Hitherto had paid no atten-
tion to the liquor cases Will. any views Of
writing an opinion; | had enough in my own
cases TO claim all my time and labor. /
presumed that the Judges having the Beebe
cases specially IN charge would exhaust the
subject and the authorizes In this was
not disappointed. But IN the course Of
reasoning pursued and the conclusions ar
rived at, could not concur with either
To silently or briefly dissent was to open
the way to misrepresentation. had there
fore no option but to write out my own
views.
Up, therefore to the eve of the public
session Of Court, about the last of Novem-
bcr, had no opinion on the liquor ques-
tion--only that of mere non occurrence
with Messrs. Gookins and Perkins. Till
that time / did not fully realize the neces-
sity Of a separate opinion. During the
week of the public session at the State
House nothing further was done but to ap-
point an early day for re-agument. This was
done chiefly at my instance. / was unwill-
ing to determine question so important
without hearing all that could be urged on
both sides.
I Immediately after the public session the
opinion on the manufacturing case. iuclud.
ing the agency, was written out at home
subject to such change as the re-argument
might produce. The opinion on tho sale
was wholly prepared as published. after
the re-argument in December In the opin-
ion on the sale, had reserved the right,
. with the consent Of the other Judges, to
revise the opinion on the manufacturing
and publish it at future day; but one Of
the Judges objected to that, and the sentence
to that effect was stricken out. So the opin.
ion on that branch of the liquor question
still lies in my drawer.
That the opinion on the sale was prcpar-
ed after the re-argument must have been
apparent to the counsel and to all who at
tended Court during its progress. Judge
Mcdonald must have been aware how large
ly profted by that very able discussion.
Some Of the very men. who in their address
to the people OF Indiana insinuatc that the
course Of the Court was predetermined.
were also present They must have dull
ears If they are not aware that the opinion
on the sale is based chiefly on that agu-
ment. To ordinary intelligence the author
les cited i'm the discussion and in tho onin