Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1856-04-17
PLYMOUTH, IND, APRIL IL, 1856.

terms of friendly intercourse for the last
year, | might appeal whether you knew my
opinion on the liquor question beforehand.
You knew that was opposed to the law as
a measure of policy. You knew tha in the
Legislature of l85l-2 l voted against the
Maine law as quasi sumptuary law to
which no free people should submit. You
knew that as private citizen l had in va
rious WAYS expressed the same sentiments
I opposed it too as bad temperance policy.
But that could have nothing to do with the
judicial question whether the Legislature
had the power to pass a foolish and odious
enactment. Did any f-you know my opin-
ion as Judge on that question? No sir
for one reason, that had none and for an
other, that regard for judicial propriety
would have restrained such loquaci,y. l
might appeal also to my intimate friends
the Clerk, Reporter. and Sheriff of the Su-
preme Court. They were in my room sew
eral times during the preparation of the
opinion. They saw the manuscript in
progress on my table. They knew it was
on the liquor question. But not one
) of them knew the reasoning or the re-
: suit.
Sir, there is one rule of judicial proprie-
ty to which have endeavored to conform.
and that is to observe every prudence in
relation to matters pending in Court. Nay,
more, not only have not wished TO hear,
but l have scrupulously - :led every po-
sition where l might be -, to hear any
thing which should be Spoken only by
counsel in the presence of opposing coun-
: sell Hence | endeayored to shun ultra
men of every shade. You ali know that
have no sympathy with ultraists or IA
natics, of any kind. l have never court
ed their favor. Between ,he advocate oi
. the 'inalienablc right of free liquor and
the rabid Maine law man cannot readily
distinguish. Both are fanatics Hence
l | have Stunned them both, because neither
were likely to throw light on the judicia
path; nor were they in any event legitimate
mediums of communication with the
, Court.
If, therefore, any one pretended to know
my opinion, such prctence was utterly f,lse
both because held no such communica-
ton with any one, and because had Lot
IN truth for months after any opinion on
the subject / had once before in private
assured Judge Mcdonald that all such
reports weic false. had hoped that was
sufficient. What his purpose was in re-
peaing it in the Convention l do not pre-
tend to know. 1t is hardlyto be presumed
however, tha- it was a shat. at random
sent
The State Temperance Committee lingel
i. upon the same falsehood with evident relish
In their address to the people already al.
lude to they say but We will not use in
vective nor sit in judgment on the motives
of the Judges Not they. They only insin-
uate that the Court yielded to the liquor in
fluence tor party purposes! Or to use their
own chaste and charitable language, the
Judges soiled the purity Of the ermine oi
justice for the paltry success of party
through the votes of the rumseller and his
satellites Yet this grave charge. those
sapient gentlemen say, is not invective
: nor any imputation Of the motives of the
Judges! Nor is it to be presumed that
they made the charge for any 'paltry party
purposes!' Not at all. Such holy men
as Fletcher. Blake & Company never ac'
on party motives. They are too pure foI
that. They even solemnly aver that they
'are not anxious for the success Of an,
party! And this they expect the people oi
Indiana to believe. To those acquainted
with the history Of those men. this profess
ion Of faith must be highly amusing. Gre
dat Judeas Appeua will be the general ap.
probation accorded to them by all who
know them.
That the Supreme Judges have not been
; actuated by party motives in their Judicial
career scarcely needs refutation. The liquor
law of 1853 was passed by Democratic
Legislature. 1t was quite as much Dem
ocratic measure as the law Of 1855 was a
Fusion measure. Aside from constitutional
objections. the two acts stand in marked
contrast to each other--indicativc of the
governing principles and policy of the two
! parties. Yet this Democratic liquor law
was declared unconstitutional by a Demo
, cratic Court Do these Immaculate pat.
rons of temperance, some Of whom fig
ured as high priests in the drunken or,
} gies of 1910. do they think the Judges SO
, decided for tho paltry success of the par.
. ty?
The school law was also Democratic