The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1871-10-26

wing charge: The viruleuce and APP
parent maiignity that characterize the
recent assaults Of TEE CLARION upon
Judge Tarbell would indicate the exist
-'ence of something more than ordinary
design we proceed to the question as
. whether such person, as Judge Tar
bell has been shown to be, should have
been permitted to have brought disgrace
upon the high position which he now
holds, by grace Of Gov. Aleorn and
Radical Senate.
We know nothing of Judge TarbelIs
military record, upon which the Leader
places so much stress, other than that
contained in the official order, which We
have published, dismissing him from the
service for conduct unbecoming an Off
''cer and a gentleman" nor do We care
| for his military record, for at the best he
was one Of the horde of mercenary van
! dals and Hessians that were sent from the
North to devastate with fire and sword
1
Yet, Notwithstanding this dismissal
from the service for ungentlemanly con-
duct, we are informed by the Leader
THAT any man might well be proud of"
Judge Tarbelrs war record.
Very good. We presume the next
hing we hear will be that any man
might well be proud of the civil record
he has made since he has figured in pol
tics in Mississippi. Might well be
proud of" having been arrested for at
tempt at intimidation, upon affidavit
Of members of his own party.
might well be proud of the letters
which were published over his signature in
the printed testimony which was taken
before the Reconstruction Committee in
lS6S-'69, upon the Coalition of affairs
in Mississippi. The charges in which let
tiers were proven to be the mere fabrica-
tons of brain envenomed against the
people among whom he lived, and of
whom he wished to be ruler.
g Might well be proud of" the infa-
nous and notorious Brandon letter which
| appeared in the Pilot, and which was
traced to Judge Tarbell, and proven to
have been written by him, though he pro-
tested he was Gin no sense the author" of it.
If ''any man might well be proud
cot" all these things, which should have
dsgraced the person guilty of them be-
yond redemption, then we presume also
any man in the opinion of the Leader
might we'll be proud of the following
article which appeared, editorially, in the
/ Pilot of May 18th, 1871, and which is
known to have been written by Judge
TarbelI. Think of Supreme Judge
publishing in partizan journal an edi-
| torial giving to himself and one of his
Associates "all honor for having legally
''blocked nice little Democratic game"
while he charges his other Associate with
| having made a ''covert reflection upon
''the majority of the court" in his dis
senting opinion. 1t is hardly necessary
for us to say that the dissenting Associate
who was thus attacked, is Judge SimraIl,
between whom and Judge Tarbell there
is as much similarity as there is between
an eagle and dung bill fowl.
Judge Tarbell's article, which appeared in
the Pilot, May 18th, 1871:
The Supreme Court.
There has recently broken out IN the more
violent of the Democratic press. n war upon
the supreme Court of this State. We have
DELAYED to notice this assault, because we
desired To observe its development in ST.
lence. TO better understand its merits, and
thus more elfectually to meet it. The All
journment of the Legislature enables us to
devote n little attention to this matter, and
We suggest Ia our Republican exchanges Of
rhis State the propriety OF laying tue facts
before their readers. 1t seems that the SUI
prene Court has had before it the question
whether Chancery or Courts Of Law should
take cognizanee of case involving the le-
.ality OF the levy of taxes. On the one
hand it was sought to have all tax cases"
Leard in ChancerS. and the law so declared
H. to enable ChaucrlIorS To restrain the col
lection of taxes pending litigation. The
order of the Chancellor enioining the tax
collector from proceeding H. based upon a
bill of com plant, in which the com plainant
las only To set forth allegations upon his
information aud belief. It is well under
stood that that lawyer is a fool who il una
hle IL frame bill upon which he cannot
obtain an Injunction. as it contains a prima
tacie ease. and Is unopposed. In tact, tile
order OF Injunction Is almost IA matter os
course. We learn that several cases have
recently been determined in the Supreme
Court wherein there Aas no pretense of
mrtit in any court. and that, i'm fact no
court possessed the power of relief, but
That the eases were proper subjects Of AN
application tn the legislature Tor relief:
vet injunctlnnS were granted. and W hen The
cases were determined the law had been re-
pealed. and the whole tax was lost to the
~tat". when only part should have been
rrmitted. No court caH do this. The prac-
lice has been bad enough heretofore, but
the effort was now nia'le to subject to the
Il functions Of the Chanceilors. by a general
rule. the tax levieS of every county in the
State. In fact. it was an effort to subordi-
nae the administration to the bitterness
aud ingenuity of Democratic LAWYERS and
politicians. We mix law aud policy The |
court determined the case upon strictly le- |
gal grounds. and the opinion of Chief ,Jus-
tice Peyton Is mastery and most triumph |
ant Vindicatiun of the law of the case |
showing that in no State in the Union is |
there any law statutory, or by judicial de-
cision, upon which the practice sought to be /
secured here can be based. Such. SAYS thu, I
court. is the law. We say policy concurs |
with the law. All honor, therefore. to the |
judges who have thus legally blocked nice |
little Democratic game. Falling in the |
court. they sought to run law through the /
Legislature, comforting upon ChanceIIors /
the power to enioin the collection of taxes /
enormously. wroagfully or illegalIv as /
seased" This also failed, thanks 70 the yiU
lance of Republican whose name We
withhold for the present.
We have sought and inspected the opinions
on the question referred To, and their peru
n 81. ~ a.
ness of the majority of the court. Indeed.
they are so clear that the question might.
with saftey, be submitted to jury Who
never saw a law book. The dissenting
opinion appears to have been revised hy
some other than than the writer thereaf |
and if our statement is doubted, we viii, at