The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1873-03-08

charge has been repeatedly made before,
and, if we are not mistaken, by the
TELEGRAPH several times. Among
members Of the bar the accusation has
been mentioned so often as to have be.
come stale. And the Court has I'M
doubtedly seen its decisions similarly
denounced time and time again. The
last noticeable instance Of this kind is
the recent report of the majority OF the
Committee Of Privileges and Elections
of the U. S. Senate. True, it is not pos
lively asserted that the opinion of the
Court was made especially in Kellogg's
interest, but there can be no doubt that
such was the inference the Committee
meant to be drawn from the language
used.
We might, we believe, take up some
of the dissenting opinions Of the Chief
Justice himself, and similar opinions
by his Associates, and show that they
have mutually charged each other with
rendering decisions immoral, unconsti-
tutional, contrary to law, custom and
evidence, and not fit to stand upon
record as the solemn DEGREES Of the
highest tribunal of the State. What
could possibly be the motives infuenc-
ing such DEGREES?
If Judge Ludeling is really in earnest
in taking up the defense OF his course
in the Railroad interest, it seems to us
he ought to acknowledge the force of
prescription. The New Orleans Bee,
and also Judge Campbell, both, if we
remember correctly, arraigned Judge
Ludeling in much severer terms than
the Picayune has, for his course In the
purchase OF the Vicksburg and Shreve-
port road, and to the schemes resorted
to to secure aid from the State. It is
the simple truth that the State is to-day
chargeable with debt, (upon which it
is paying interest, } amounting to more,
by half at least, than the road is worth,
and that this prohigate appropriation
OF the peoples money WAS made, In
greater part, at the instance of Chief
Justice Ludeling and his associates,
and for their benefit. We do not I'M
dertake to say that corrupt means were
employed to obtain this aid, but we do
say that there is no just defense, upon
patriotic grounds, in procuring and re-
ceiving the appropriation. If the Chic
Justice Of the State was a party to this
extravagant use Of the peoples money,
so much the greater offense. We put it
to any man Of sound discretion to say
what sort Of a spectacle a judge pre-
sents who condemns the inequality Of
wages and labor, or the inadequacy Of
prices and property, or the insuf1ciency
of Il plaintiffs demand, or Of a defen-
dant's plea in compensation, and yet
represents in his own name and person
a corporation VIGOROUSLY amenable to
all these accusations.
The social question involved in this
case will doubtless excite public curl
osity the most. TO define ones social
position, it is first necessary to know
what society rates the individual at.
Chief Justice Ludcling has never inn
pressed us very profoundly rs q social
being. He is MOST generally known as
Il sort of recluse, who does not mingle
much in society and seems to give his
time almost entirely to his home and
his office. II is due him, however, to
say, that, SO far as his walk in social
life has passed under our eye it has been
moral and temperate, if NOT c Iii
tirely exemplary. What may belong
to his anteeedents, now about to become
q subject OF judicial investigation, we
arc wholly unprepared to give an csti-
mate, knowing nothing about his pri-
vatc history.
1t strikes us, after IL survey Of the
case, that the Chief Justice had better
have placed his reputation in the keep
ing Of the future annalist, and eschewcd
the annoying details Of Il suit at law.
Possibly the liberty Of The press is very
often abused, but taking into account
the personal accountability Of press
conductors, the certainty OF their cx-
posure when they misrepresent or even
distort facts, and the great blessings
derived from the disclosures OF crime