The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-15
LUDELING.
ErHAT EGOTIsrIC sCALAwAG GETS
DECIDED sNUB FROM THE sU-
PREME COURT or THE UNITED
GTATE@.
correspondence Of the Democrat


WASHINGTON, ID. G., February 7, 1879.
The monotony or the proceedings In the
Supreme Court OF the United States liz some
times broken by Incidents which regular cor
respondents fail to observe. A casual visitor
sometimes gets well rewarded for the time
spent there Such scene occurred January
20, when John 7. Ludeling. ex-Chief Justice
of Louisiana, was effectnaIly squeched by
Chief Justice Waite. This IL the more sig
nifieant because Ludelfng is connected by
marriage with Judge Waite.
The second instalment Of the notorious
ease OF Henry r. jackson and others VS.. John
T. Ludelng and others, was fixed TO be tried
January 20, 1879. When the case was called.
that day. Judge j. 3. Black announced to the
court that his employment, as the attorney
OF the Ludeling ct ais., was not complete and
that he was unprepared and unwilling to try
the case, at least before the arrival OF Lude-
ling, who was then due In Washington. but
had been delayed by a railroad misconnection.
The Chief Justice had received a telegram to
that effect from Ludeing, stating that he
would be present next day and ready to try
the case. On the next day the case was called
Judge Black and LudeIinK both present; also
Judge Campbell for Jackson ct ais Ludeling
arose and asked that the case be delayed and
ing this delay that on his arrival
In Washington he had found bis
counsel, Judge Black, Gnprepared to
argue the case, and that he was unwilling
supported by counsel, because he was not
familiar with the proceedings and practice
In that court aud, even II he were, that the
magnitude Of the case and the number Of de-
PENDANTS engaged In It rendered more than
one counsel necessary. SO far, very well.
But right here the overweenng vanity and
presumption which have grown UP In Ltde-
ling, from ten years bOssinE and domineer-
ing the State Of Louisiana, asserted and ad-
yertjsed themselves Ludelinp has ALWAYS
thought that he would have gained the origi-
nal suit OF Jackson against himself had he
prepared the brief, and had he been present to
argue it before the Supreme Court. And he
has been satisfied that on the trial of the sec
ond case ne could not only obtain o Judgment
In full In has favor, but that he could convince
the Supreme Court that the first decision was
erroneous and that 1t did him gross injustice,
and he was thoroughly convinced that when
the court had heard him all tho structures
upon himself would be al least retracted, and
probably be apologized Tor.
In the first suit jackson obtained Judgment
against Ludeling annulling the sheriff g sale,
made to him In 1866, OF the Vlcksburg,
Shreveport and Texas Railroad The SUI
preme Court Of the United States based Its
decision on the ground that Ludeling's title
was fraudulent and that he obtained 1t by
gross frauds. In the decree, however, the
court reserved to Ludeing the right to
claim, In a separate proceeding In the Circuit
Court, reimbursement for all the improve
ments and betterments he had put on the
road while In his possession. But the court
unequivocally annulled Lnde1lng's title to the
railroad and adjudged himself and associates
s'possessors In bad faith"
In the second or separate suit Ludeling
proved improvements and betterments, and
Circuit Judge Woods gave him a Judgment
for about half o million dollars, payable by
preference over the mortgage bondholders,
out OF the proceeds OF the railroad when sold
by the marshal to enforce Jackson's mort
gage.
Judge Woods based his decision on the
proposition that "possessors in bad faith"
are entitled to pay for the actual improve
ments they put upon tba property, under the
Civil Code OF Louisiana.
jackson appealed to the Supreme Court OF
the United States. The question now to be
decided by that court Is the correctness of
Judge Woods decision. The question before
the Supreme Court on the twenty-ninth of
January was simply shall this case be tried
now, or be refixed2
Ludelings preposterous eeotism and self
assertion led him, euefa at that preliminary stage
of The case, to go beyond the question OF post
ponemert proper.
He stated to the Supreme Court OF the
United States, In substance, that 1t was very
important for him to have a full opportunity
TO present the case before that court, because
their original decision had done him great
Ssvustice.
AT this point the thunder-bolt Of Justice
stuck him down.
Judge Waite said to him. In substance
Judge Ludeling, this court does not desire
to hear and will not listen to any remarks
upon the formers opinion and decree rendered
against you. Any remarks In relation there
to are entirely foreign to the question now
before the court. The former decision Of this
court, In the case OF jackson vs. Ludeling, IL
final and irrevucable. This court will not
tolerate any comments or criticisms upon
that decision"
Whereupon Ludeling sat down, more fully
convinced than ever that the judges Of the
United States Supreme Court are set of
fools. Yours truly A. ID. SCRIBER.