New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-06-07

stroyed; that al persons had Q right to Destroy
them, and were no more legally Responsible ior
doing 70 than they would be for sbstins any other
nuisance. Poor Mr.. Browns fate was bltterer
than bis btterest btters Choate was hoored,
Merwin prostrated, Bartlett confoutded and
Loripg routed. Lawyers will differ, ard when
co1fred TO the bar, the difference is always
harmless, ard sometimes amusing. But when
the Chief justice sees point in one light aud the
attorney in another in contest of Bar We. Bench,
the lawyer has not fair chance He may be
dictstoria in bis Office, and sell bis opinions for
cash. and for a great deal Of IT. but when he comes
ipte court il is another matter. de may CHARM
bis cieIt very successfully; but to charm Chief
Justice Shaw may be found another and more
OpeIose operation. He sustained, in Browns case,
the right Of private persons to aSate common
nuisance-to Use sufficient force TO accomplish this
but no more than Necessary; and he ruled that
CON binatio of persons to effect the object cannot
be regarded as a cor spiraey. This opinion, how
ever, be cautiously and sufficiently qualified. The
power thus exercised without formal legal process
must be strictly construed. Parties breaking into
a w ~
their peril. The justification fails, and they are
trespassers al init,o. Something but the liquor must
be destroyed. There were questions of fact left In
this case by the Court to the Jury. verdict for
the defendants was rendered, al the case has how
gone up to the full bench upon exceptions. There
will be more augmentation, but there will be no
distu bance of tie verdict and no new trial. The
Chief is pretty nearly omnipotent in his ownCourt,
ard in this case as i'll most ce'es. his law Is i'm
pregnabIy and solidly sound.
We have particularly alluded to this case be-
cause, apart from its special, it has an independent
and general interest The decision seems to us to
be refreshing victory of ststdte law over Judge
law Courts are constituted not to esislate, but to
enforce the laws already enacted. In the con-
,tIuctiOn Of statute, the main duty Of Judge is
to discover the intention of the Legislature, task
which in .pite of clumsDess and verbage is rarely
difficult. This opinion may be highly heretlcal, but
as We prefer justice to clubbing, and equity to the
splitting of hairs we intend for the present to abide
by il. The main nuisance created by the Fugitive
Slave law has been that Eckspittle Commissioners
have, in their unnatural appetite for dirt decided
sganst the weight Of evidence. Thus, the opinion
of Judge Loripg of Boston in the case of Burns was
wrong He sen! back that fugitive in the face of
testimony which would have insured the scquittal
of pickpocket or burglar; and his decision gave
every sound lawyer sickness at the stomach. An
illustration of smother kind may be found in the
decision Of Judge Curtis, that Congress had only
abolished logging with cat-of-nine. tails the use
of cat of one tail or of eight tails remaining per-
fectly lawful The decision of Judge Shaw is
equally free from injustice and friyolity; and We
here predict that il will stand until the law which
it expouLds shall have been repealed