Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1856-04-17
From the Democratic Pharos.
LIQUOR LAW---SUPREME COURT
ATTACKS OF FUSI0NISTS.


premo Court, coupled with the grossest
Misrepresentation of their motives. 'Whis-
keyi;es. Rum suckers perjared Judges.
DC. g., are the keynotes for the Fusion
press and speakers. No epithe:s are too
low or abusive to be aimed at the Democrat
ic Judges by men who ought to have more
candor than to thus impuyn the motives of
men for whom they profess personal friend
ship, or at least respect. Last Saturday
night, at the Democratic Club, Judge
Stuart was called upon for remarks
His response was ordered by a vote of the
Club to be published. Judge Stuart said:
Mr. PREsrDENT:-Permit me to call your
attention a moment to the liquor question
NOT for the purpose of discussing 1t,
leave that to others; but to note the style
in which the temperance argument Is con-
Quoted. In connection with the liquor
law the Supreme Court has been visited
with unmeasured abuse. Tho English
language was not rich enough. They had
to coin new words. Even such men as
Judge Mcdonald in the late temperance
convention, and Messrs. Hanaman, Fletch-
er, Blake, Dillon, Thompson, Mills and
Barry, in late temperance circular to
the people of Indiana, lend themselves to
circulate slandcr against the Court.
In marked and honorable contrast is the
course of the Democratic party towards
Judge Gookins. He was elected by the
Fusionists in 1854, and some claim partly
on the liquor issue. He sustained the
whole law in all lis details. Yet am not
aware that any Democratic paper or public
speaker has said single word abusive ot
Judge G. They differ with him in opinion;
hey believe his conclusions erroneous; they
canvass his arguments. This Il as /,
should be. Of this no man Of any party
has right to complain. The opinion oi
Court is public property-subject to
just criticism. If its reasoning and prin-
ciples are unsound, their fallacy should be
exposed.
From some men in the Fusion ranks no
species Of defamation would either surprise
or offend Their censure is the best evil
dence Of rectitude. Their appreciation is
but an index of some mental or moral obi
qui;y. A prudent man would inslinctlvely
suspect the soundncss of his own opinions ii
he concurred with them.
But among those above named | recog-
nize with surprise and regret some whom
| | have hitherto highly estimated | dii
not dream that under the guisc of personal
friendship they would deliberately make an
assault SO pregnant alike with bad taste
and bad feeling. | never have, nor do
now pretend to notice the innumerab!e
pack that have been barking at the Court.
AS responsible endorscrs Of SANDER pre-
fer to deal with these gentlemen.
! 1t is well known that there were some
things did not approve and do not defend.
only propose to intimate briefly my own
course and vindicate that.
Judge McDonald's remarks in the tenn
perance convention carry the idea that the
majority of the Court perkins. Davidson
aud Stuart) were acting in concert with
M. Manville and the liquor men-that
Manville told him as settled fact months
before what the decision would be, and
how each Judge would stand. In the same
strain the temperance circular signed by
Fletcher, Blake d Co., goes on in substance
thus: 'Rumor said that for the paltry sue
cess of party. through the votes Of the
rumseller and his satellites. the mandate oi
the supreme Judiciary would arrest the law
in It's course, but she was not believed
But still the report gathered strength and
consistency-is assumed an air of authori-
ty; it presumed to indicate tho position ol
each of the Judges; and then good men be-
gan to fear. as the evil gathered confidence,
that it might not be well in the issue. AT
last that issue came-6rst the decision of q
single Judge. and then the decision Of the
Bench, and our wost fears were realized.
Elsewhere they speak Of the industry Of the
Court to support a position tho! had been pre-.
determined.
Answering only for myself, pronounce
the insinuations contained in the above ex-
tract an unmitigated fllsch BOD.
The history of the liquor cases is my best
vindication. When distributed by the
Clerk in the order of submission, one Of
them fell to Judge Gookins-the other to
Judge Perkins had no case in my hands
involving the liquor question. was in no
manner responsible either for the haste OF
the delay Of preparing these eases for decis-
ION. Pe scnally was in favor Of withhold
in their consi leration III the term previous
/ to the meeting of the le i5lature: rs had