, 1865-05-05
COMMUNICATED.
The Idaho Capitol Question Again.

@NeS~N~C
LEWISTON, I. T., April %, 1865.
EDS. STATESMAN II have earnestly desired
to keep free from all controversy on this subject
since its agitation in our Territory, except in so
far as absolute duty epjoined and my relation as
an attorney in the case legitimately extended ;
and especially have Idesired to keep free from
any newspaper controversy. Neither do | pur-
pose to engage in one of that nature now but
that few facts may be submitted to a candid
world" errors corrected and truth cleared of its
perversion, propose to submit this communica-
ton, with accompanying paper, and ask the ia
yOr of their publication. This whole case is
truly farcical, and do not propose to say any
thing of its history, or anything in exculpation
or animadversion of the actions of those who
have borne a prominent part therein up to the
time the case was brought to a final hearing be-
fore the District Court, but shall speak Of mat
ters transpiring since the opinion of the Court,
delivered by His Honor, Judge Smith, on the
l7th inst. Two days after this occurred, there
was distributed about the streets of Lewiston a
printed circular, said to contain the "opinion of
the Court in the Capital case" Upon reading
this circular, observed marked difference be-
tween it and that which / had heard read by the
Court, and upon comparing the two, (haying ac-
cess to the original, besides being furnished
with rer5ati1n copy, which herewith enclose)
was not little astonished at finding them so ma
terially differing, not only in word and letter,
but, according to my understanding, in legal
sense and meaning. In some instances, IN the
printed "opinion, " many words and some whole
sentences are entirely left out while in other in
stances sentences and expressions are introduced
having entirely contrary signifcatiOn, as
regard it, from the true intent and purport the
opinion as given by the Judge on the bench.
With these facts so glaringly before me, andsup-
posing a like perUerSion Of the opinion wo1ld be
published in the Radiator, unless attention was
called to the fact addressed to the publisher a
note in language following
f.u ''LEwIsToN, April 20, 1865.
T. J. FAyoBITE, Esq, Publisher Radiator
Sir: notice printed a circular purporting to be
an 'opinOn in the Capital case, " being circula-
ted among the citizens Of Lewiston. As a mat
ter of Justice to the Court, who rendered the
opinion in the case, and for myself as one of the
counsel for defendants desiring that the people ol
the Territory should be correctly informed in re-
lation thereto, would request that you publish
the opinion as rendered by the Court, in your
next issue. Very truly yours.
Shortly after this met the editor, Mr.. Leland,
and in a conversation with him upon the sub
iect he confessed TO having changed the lam
guage, but dsclaimed altering the sense. He
also stated to the Court, but short time previ-
ously, that he had Rewritten, corrected and
changed the phraseoogy, but not the import
and meaning of the opinion, which, he stated,
the Judge, upon hearing it read, had acknowl-
edged as correct. The Court making no re-
sponse to this, evidenced the truth Of the state
ment but whether the paper read to the Judge
corresponds, in exact terms with the "circular
opinion" (some call it the LELAND Opinion y
admits of doubt, as the Judge, am credibly in
formed, denies the latter being his opinion in
the case; and, as it so materially differs from
the original, in the handwriting of the Judge,
and it being natural to suppose that the "COurt
knows himself, and the ideas he intended to
convey, am irresistibly led to the belief that he
either misunderstood the language of the "Le-
land opinion, or else he was designedly de-
ceived.
The next day after addressing the foregoing
note to the publisher, met him, renewing my
request in person. and offering to furnish him
for publication a certified copy of the opin-
ion or the original if he so desired, but he de-
clined both, stating that the request came too
late as above, that the public might have some
intimaton of the injustice done them. This he
also declined to do stating that it would be a
reflection upon Mr. Leland.
In an item in the last issue of his paper the
editor and opinion maker assumes to explain
matters but in this he signally fails in his pur-
pose, as his statement of facts is well known to
be incorrect. For him to talk Of "cayilers" to
those who are acquainted with his maneuvering
and status in the case" is most cool indeed.
He very well knows the opinion he publishes is
not the opinion of Judge Smith as read in the
court He we'll knows that no one altered that
opinion but himself and knows well the extent
and purpose to and for which it was changed.
Being an Attorney in the case also, should
think that simple modesty and a sense of manly
proprety would have forbidden in him the ex-
ercse ofsuch an assumed privilege. Our Courts
of Justice ought to be sufficiently well qualified
IN literary as well as legal attainments to rem
der their own opinions and decisions without
the intermeddling of attorneys. To show what
has been done in this instance by plaintiffs At
torney, make one quotation from the Judges
opinion in his reference to the Territorial Secre-
tary The Judge says ~.
" he has taken the laws with him, and there
is still remaining here some of the property be-
longing to him by virtue Of his office. This
Court has no power over him now be has gone
and be as the Secretary ofthis Territoryis enti
tied to them, He can go, &c