The New Orleans daily Democrat., 1878-11-01

but they ordered end decreed as follows tSee
q Wallace, y. G24l. u.-.....u -...z.
IT is further ordered, adiudged and deer99ad q
that the sale made 10 John A. Ludellna and / his
ssooiates and The H., Of he sherf y to
be deslarsd 10 be fraudulent and roid, and De SCI
nside assd cancelled. aud that ape,pettal irjol,g,
| TO refrain from settling up or claiming ANY
RIGHT, title or Interest under said sale or under
| setd deed, and also commanding them, their
| otherwise disposIng of any Of the property.
rights. credits privileges Or effects covered "
or e,rb,aGed within 4 The mortgage M mafe hy lh9
satd etcksbuTE. Shreveport and Texas Ratlfoad
Company
notwithstanding this peremptory and
sweeping order OF the Supreme Court w. y.
Woods, Circuit Judge whose duty 1t is, with
out hesitation. without u nurtuur and Without
criticism to obey and execute this and all other
orders OF that court TO him addressed, has
not only thrown every obstacle that he posi-
bly, could In the way OF the full execution oi
that Decree but he has even put 1t on record,
and, MS Il to crown md consumtnate his dis
obedience Of his siIperiors -as II to place the
top-stone on tho Babel Of his sullen and rebel
lious dissent to the scandal and astonsh-
tnent Of el America, he has had the audhclty
even to put 1t on tho public records Of his
court and Of the country thai In his opinion
tho "rights '-ay, the "rights of Iude-
ling and associates have been denied them by
the Supreme Court Of tho United States
This man hos the intolerable impudence to
criticse the final Judgment Of the appellate
court, and to say 10 It In the most contuma-
cious and mutinous language that HE would
have decided that htrocious sale to be valid
(n hrs f1,1 and I'm vujtr I,,
L,s1ellng and associates II he had not been
% subordinate officer and bound to obey sups-
rior orders. This In retaliation for The lash
Ing they gave him In 1874 over Ludolings
shoulders for Woods decision Of 1879. with
that Of the Supreme Court reversing him.
don't comport very well together. One of
thcrn Is necessarily wicked and must have
sprung from corrupt motives. Any other sK-
PLANTATION of their contradictory language
and doctrine Is utt uly impossible. for that
which tho Supreme Court declared WAS black
with fraud. Woods said lin substancel was
white with Innocence See page 2G Of his
printed opinionl "No fraud (says Woods)
was praCtiCed that cnn find disclosed by tho
record, - ending his decision with this hypo-
crlticnl emollieut: II am gratIed to know
that If, In tho conclusion ] have reached /
have fnllen into error, there Is Il court Of ap-
peals, to which easy resort may be had,
where my errors cnr be corrected" Judge
Woods Is not, as the momb0rs Of tho bar Of
the Fifth Circuit know, d very lencned chan
cery lawyer. but he Is not Nh ignornrnus. Our
conclusions us TO his conduct In this case are
therefore, tho reverse Of favorable to his Off
Cinl integrity
We have counted no loss than SIX direct nnd
palpablo falsehoods In Judge Lt,deIings
speech at Vidalla, but We propose now to con-
iine ourselves 10 the exposure of only ono Of
Thorn. being guided by tho maxim "out of
ono instance learn all" He claims to hnve
had fuc decisions In his favor as to the lc-
guilty Of this railroad speculation Of his. We
ore at b loss for language in which properly
to characterize this bold but untrue state
meut. It Is simply false and we dare Mr.. |
or any Of his friends, to cite US any
other decision In his favor, as against tho
bondhOlderg. with the exception
Of that rendered In April 1879, by Woods, |
Circuit Judge, which the Supreme Court SO
vigorously trampled upon and mashed into
jelly The less Mr.. Ludeling says about
they were rendered In cases where the parties
were not tho same; whore tho facts were not
the same; where the cause Of action was en-
tiroly different, and tho Judgment of the
court alsO-tt being contest between rival
bidders at q sheriff 3 sale, and not mort |
gage creditors suit to bring tho mortgagcd |
property to % sale In satisfaction Of their |
debt, us this suit of Jnckson's is
Mr.. Ludeling Is further reported to havo
said ut VidaIin that he and his associates had |
about $2,0OO,000 in febuiIding the
railroad since the sale made in 1866. We
should prefer to think this 8 mis-print or an
error Of the reporter, because the account of
1hese expenditures Is on file among the |
records Of tho suit in the United States Cir
,uit Court here, and it shows an expenditure |
II rebuilding tho railroad Of only 1884 ,0Gt.
We have before lis also, as we write, the
printed brief Of argument Of Mr. John Ray
)ne Of Ludeling' 8 associates In the fraud, on
;he questions involved In this account He
states the expenditure for "repairs and i'm
made by Ludeing and associ-
ates, to have been S884OGi 16. which includes
$1,000 % as interest on the principal
Judge Woods, In the decision rendered June
, 1876, reported In I'd Woods Rep, .. -,
states the amount expended by Ludeling and
associates for construction and repairs of the
ailroad to be S748,154 88. It is, therefore,
quite clear that Mr.. Ludeling either will
ully and knowingly nisstated the figures of
lis expenditures, or that he has been mis-
eported by the Vidalia newspaper.
In another article we shall conclude our
upon Judge Ludeling's most extra
ordinary attempt to answer the charges
which have been made against him.
!
RAISE YOUR QUARANTINES.