The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1881-12-22
The IOO-3 Case Advanced.

The 1908 Case Advanced.
Special Judge Edwin Ii. Ewing de-
livered the unanimous opinion of the
supreme court at Nashville Saturday in
advancing the 1908 case upon the
docket for hearing. 1t is understood it
will be tried upon its merits about the
middle of January. The opinion is
long and gives fully the reasons and
constructions of law which actuated the
court. The following are the points
made, briefly stated:
A complainant ought not to be heard
for delay when he appeals for redress.
He is supposed to desire immediate re-
lief, else he would not appeal, and it
does not lie in him to seek delay of the
redress for which he asks. Especially
do the reasons apply when the defend
ant, who always has right to claim de-
lay that he may prepare his cause, an
nounces himself ready for trial. The
suggestion that some contingency
might arise if delay is granted which
would altar the status of the case can
not be considered. There is no law re-
quiring causes to be heard in their or
der, and though this is proper and sane
toned by usage, the right is not vested
and must yield to more pressing de-
mands, at the discretion of the court.
The right of individuals to have their
cases heard in order must yield to a
question involving the public welfare
and which so vitality affects a whole
people financially, politically, morally
and individually, besides the rights OF
the creditors. To the argument ad-
yanced by compliments that if the
cause were advanced the people might
be cut of forever from the power to re-
peal a law distasteful to them and
stained with corruption, the court an
swers that it is not shown that a repeal
would necessarily follow if opportunity
were afforded, and it cannot be taken
for granted that the law is either good
or bad, OF ought or ought not to bs-re-
pealed; that the power to repeal will be
cut off by decision, but future contin-
gencies in this case cannot be consid-
cred when the matter has the sanction
of prima Jacie validity as law. Ii the
grounds for injunction were tenable and
correct they can be shown and bribery
and corruption be made manifest, and
the advancement OF the cause gives
complainants the very right they seek
in delay. They cannot object TO trying
the very grounds upon which they base
their rights, and the objection made
upon this point is an acknowledgment
that the injunction was wrOngfully
granted, if the point made is tenable. If
upon trial it is found the injunction can
not stand, then the grounds here taken
are not tenable; but to say they are
tenable before they are investigated is
to decide the matter before it comes to
trial, upon supposable contingencies. |
Laying aside all this reasoning, the
court then gives another reason which |
alone would compel it to advance the
cause, tO-wit: The statute requiring
the advancement of all causes ''the de- |
cision of which shall directly involve |
questions concerning the public reve-
nue." etc. 1t repudiates the doctrine |
that this statute only refers to incoming
revenue. Even If it does, this cause
must be construed in connection with
he act laying the revenue and the act
lppropriating it, with all the incident
Il facts connected with the enormous
monies collected and undisposed of, and
hus directly involves questions con-
,erning the public mountaineering,
n hand and outgoing-thus covering
very phase of the case. A conclusive
view of this point is, this decision may
bind the state in solemn contract and
Inns make it its duty to lay yearly tax
IS. Chow, theu, can it be said that
his case does not involve questions con-
,erning the public revenues of the
tate." The court considered it unnec-
,ssary to decide whether or not the
uAding board are public officers.