The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1869-05-26


to-day and most of us, recently, through
one more excited; but, never before, have
we seen the Judges of the Supreme Court,
singly or en- mdsse, moved from that bccom-
ing propriety SO indispensable to secure the
respect of the people, and, throwing aside
the ermine, jrushi into the mad contest ofpol-
itics under the excitement of drums and
flags. From the unerring lessons Of the past
we are assured, that Judge who openly
and pu 'licly displays his political party
zeal, renders himself unfit to hold the bal
ance of justicc,n and that whenever an oc-
casion may offer to serve bis fellow-partizan.
he will yield to the temptation and the
"waverIng balance will shake
40. 1t is natural weakness in man, that he,
who warmly and publicly identifies himself
with political party, will be tempted to
uphold the party which upholds him, and
all experience teaches us that partizan
| Judge cannot be safely trusted to settle the
great principles OF political constitution,
| while he reads and studies the book OF its
laws under the banners OF party. l-5.i.
Unwilling that our silence should be
construed into an Indifference to the humili-
ating spectacle now passing around us; in
fiuenced solely by a spirit of love and yene-
/ ration for the past, purity, which has DIS
tingushed the administration of the law in
our State, and animated by the hope that
| the voice OF the bar of North Carolina will
not be powerless to avert the pernicious ex-
| ample. which We have denounced and to re-
press its contagious influence, we have I'M
der sense of solemn duty subscribed and
published this paper: e.
a(Signed) B. F. MOORE. and Others"
| This paper is drafted with all the adroit-
ness OF a skillul lawyer; and under cover
'.of love and veneration for the past purity
which has distinguished the administration
| of law in our State" aims deadly blow at
the Court to which that sacred trust is n0so
confded. -g ..,.....-,,.,, .,.ir.j. t,.t, no..
Stripped of the gaudy dress by which it
is artfuly disguised, it amounts to this: A
Judge, who openly and publicly displays his
political party zeal. renders himself unfit to
hold the "balance of justice" and whenever
| an occasion may offer to serve his
fellow partizan, he will yield TO the temp.
tation. and the '''wavering balance will
shake" iI 4tf 4i1ia Hr'4 -ss or t.-'taus
Never before have we seen the Judges
OF the Supreme Court, singly or en- masse,
rush into the mad contest of politics. under
the excitement of drums and flags" there
fore, the Supreme Court, which is composed
of these Judges, is unfit to hold the bal
ance OF justice" and will, on occasion,
yield to temptation in favor Of a fellow par
tizan. 'N
If you hurt the head, or arm, or leg, or
limb, or member, or any part of the body,
you hurt the man. And the idea of an in
tentOn to iniure the character of the JUS
tices, who compose the Supreme Court,
singly or en- naasse, without an intention to
inlure the Court, is simply ridiculous. ms
The only allegation of fact on which this
"solemn protest" rests, is that "the Judges,
singly or en- m,tsse, did rush into the mad
contest of politics, under the excitement of
drums and flags"
Is this allegation of fact true, or is it false?
There is no pretence that it is trne 1t is
said, this is = figure of speech. suggested by
something that was expected to occur,
but never did occur; so the allegation of
fact is false, and the inference drawn from
it is also false. ,..,..
In our Judgment the paper'is libellnus,
and doth tend to impair the respect due to
the authority of the Court ..s 81.
Indeed, the learned counsel did not press
| tins point, and were content to take the
ground that there was no criminal intent.
Every man is presumed to intend the nat
ural consequence of his act. If one wilfully
sets fire to his own house, which Is so near
his neighbors house, that if one burns the
| other must burn also, and both houses are
burnt down, the man is guilty of arson
the criminal intent is presumed. So, in an
indictment for libel, this ground would be
untenable. except on proof of insanity.
i, iii. And for further answer this Rcspon-
dent says. that said paper was conceived
and prepared during the recent political
canvass for the Presidency, and its publica-
ton deferred until after the close of the can
yass to avoid its having the appearance of
partizan document. He admits that his pur-
pose was to express his disapprobation of
the conduct OF individuals occupying high
judicial stations, yet us an act of justice to
himself against the charge made in the rule
he not only disavows, in signing and pull
fishing said paper any intention of commit
ting "a contempt of the Supreme Court or of
imparing the respect due to its authority,
but on the contrary, he avows his motive 10
have been to preserve the purity which had
ever distinguished the administration of JUS
tice by the Courts of this State" ~.
The learned Counsel then fell back on
the ground of a distinction between an IN
dictiaent for a Hjel and rule nisi to
show cause, and assumed. as matter OF law,
that in this case, the Respondent having. on
oath, disavOxed any intention of com,
hitting contempt of the Court, or of i'm
pairing the respect due to its authority, so
as to meet the words of the Rule, it must be
discharged. he authorities cited by the
learned counsel are conclusive. The law is
well settled in this class of cases, achere tile
intention to injure constitutes the graramen.
The Rule rests on sound reason In this
proceeding as the Court is Judge in its own
case, in the first instance, where case is
made out in the Judgment of the Court, the
party in the last instance is allowed to t,y
himself. His intention is locked within his
own breast, is known to himself alone, and
he is permitted to purge himself by his own
avowal. He cannot he convicted, he is
innocent, as he may be by talse eedence betore
ajay, For ''the Court does not try him, he
tries himself" G. J. Wilmot's Opinion.
1918, referred to on the trial of Judge
Peck, 5O7. If the party after the Court de.
cides against Him, declines to t,y himself,
it must be because lie kno,cs himself to be
guilty. '.u-'i .'e'+-fi m =
1t affords every member of the Court
pleasure that the Respondent did not de-
cline to make a sufficient disavowal ON oath.
We agree with the learned counsel that this
disayowal meets the soords Of the rule: but
we must say, it seems to US in bad taste to
have introduced the expression, "he admits
that his purpose was. to express his disap-
probation Of the conduct of individuals oc-
cupying high judicial stations"
This is SO vague that the Court is unable
| 10 "a