Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1875-12-03


time there is a strong feeling against
the Supreme Court, on account of its
decision affecting the case of Isaac
Brandt. Ihave nowhere seen it's &C.
ton squarely defended; but I have
seen 1t vehemently condemned from
the Hon. Attorney General all the
way down. But before every voter
in Iowa takes his cue without ques-
tioning from that gentleman, it is
we'll to remember thst it is a personal
matter with him, that it was his duty
to prosecute Brandt, and to do it in a
lawful manner, SO that the verdict
reached would stand. As I under
stand it, the decision of the Supreme
Court virtually says that he did not
so prosecute Brandt, but did allow
the jury in. the case to be drawn in a
manner not prescribed by law, con-
shutting it an unlawful panel and de-
priving its acts of all legal force
The position thus accorded to him is
neither complimentary or satisfactory
to him. hence the warmth of his OPP
position to the decision.
1t is paraded in the papers as an
argument against the decision that
District and Circuit Courts, in various
counties in the State, have found
themselves embarrassed by it, mas
much as the jurors presenting them
selves were drawn in manner there
in declared to be unlawful. Instead
of this fact furnishing an inference
against the decision, it furnishes quite
convincing evidence that the practice
in these courts, in regard to jurors,
had become inexcusably lawless, and
that the same decision was urgently
needed and came not one day too
soon.
The objection made to the decision
Is that the Supreme Court adhered to
strict construction Of the law on
what the people reg I'd as an imma-
terial point, while as a result of that
strict construction in the present case,
a prominent criminal goes unpunish-
ed. Now, the Supreme Court cannot
be held responsible for the effect of
applying its decision to the Brandt
case. Whatever the result to that
individual, the Supreme Court is not
accountable. If he was not lawfully
tried, the fault rests not with that
body, wherever else it may rest. Its
business Is to decide what is lawful
and what is not, and it should not be
swayed a hairs breath by the thought
that the decision will make Or mar
any man or any number of men.
The Objectionable decision declares
that when the lawprescribes meth
cd of drawing jury, it must be done
precisely as the law prescri6es, and
when the law says the jurors shall be
drawn by the Sheriff or Clerk, any
other mode OF drawing is unauthor-
lied and without force. That is all.
The decision would have been ap-
plauded> only for its effect on the
pending Brandt case, for it is cor
rect decision. There is no safety ex-
cept in a strict construction of the
law. Abandon it and everything is
uncertainty and chaos. Is it objected
that the Supreme Court stopped at
small point? That is the only safe
way, for if small point is waived
this year, an important principle may
be trampled upon the next. The law
hinges all the way on small points,
1t says a man must live six months
in the State before he can vote. If
he lacks only one little, insignificant
day of the full time and votes, he is
liable for illegal voting.
The law provides that in a civil
suit the Original Notice in the the
higher courts may be signed by the
attorney for plaintiff, but in Justices
Courts it must be signed by the plain
tiff or justice. A few years ago, 1
was unfortunately an acting justice.
One day an original notice was re-
turned to me signed by ---,
attorney for plaintiff. After ponder
ing ever the case long time, finally,
not being then strict construc-
tionist-I resolved to waive the small
point Of law in the way, assumed
jurisdiction and rendered Judgment.
Unfortunately, defendants lawyer
was a troublesome man, and carried
the case up on exceptions, where
Judge Bagg, in the most heartless
manner, upset all had done, declar.