Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1884-11-03
A Partisan Judiciary,

court of Ohio divided In their decision
regarding the Scott liquor law will not
increase respect for the judiciary as an
impartial and unparalleled arbitrator.
The Scott law was Republican enact
ment that was opposed by the Demo-
Gratis OF Ohio. The supreme court is
composed of three Democrats and two
Republicans. The three Democratic
judges declare the law unconstitu-
tlonal. The two Republican judges
dissent and express their belief that
II is constitutional. So by a vote of
three to two the law is declared in.
valid, null and void
Nobody can doubt that political pref
udice swayed the supreme judges in
making up their minds as they did.
Their duty is TO interpret the law, and
that law is the same TO all, and the
rules Of Interpretation are the same.
Starting from common point, guided
by the same rules Of law, they arrive
at contrary conclusions showing that
their minds run in different grooves ;
but, very siugularly, the three Dem
ocrats all think alike and arrive at the
same point of conclusion, while the
two Republicans agree with each other
throughout, but cannot agree with the
Democrats. Now here is an interest
ing investigation for the metaphysi.
clan: Did the concurrence of three
judges being Democrats cause them
to think and reason In concert, or the
previous fact that they naturally think
and reason in concert cause them to
become Democrats? and the same Of
the two Republican judges.
This is not the frat case where the
decision of a judicial tribunal has been
affected by its political majority The
electoral commission, an extrBjudicial
continuance, divided on party lines in
the Interpretation of question oflaw
with this very astonishing result
That the eight Republicans on that
commission took exactly opposite
ground to all the teachings of Republi.
+ canism, while the seven Democrats
agreed in opposing the traditions O.
, their party. The former, though
reared and baptized in tn,
, creed that the national gov
ernment is supreme over tn,
/ states, on that occasion took the grounC
, that state certificate of election coulC
, not be questioned for fraud, and Their,
l was mo going behind the returns ,
I while the Democratic members, al
! ways jealous of the rights of the states
held that in this case the federal gov
{ eminent might go behind states Ger
: tidcate TO show fraud and reverse tina
r certificate. Yet all the Republican,
+ thought alike, and all the Democrat
}. thought alike, and both thought dill
e ferently upon plain question of law
e Another instance OF judicial-pelitica
r decisions was in the legal-tender cases
e The supreme court at FIRST declared lh
greenbacks to be an uncoustitutiona
issue OF bills OF credit; but Grant ap
pointed some Of the judges to other po
i silions to get them of the bench an,
e filed their places with lawyers VIII
e agreed, upon review of that case, tina
e the greenbacks were perfectly consti
: tutional.
9 As people we are fond of sayinl
e that our judges are non-partlsan, bu
e we can hardly believe 80 after wha
}. we have seen them do. Perhaps GU
o system OF electing them has somethinl
y to do with keeping their legal judg
!. ment attuned In concord with the part,
that elects them. II they were no
e elected as and by political partisan
> they might be less liable 20 tinctur
}, their decisions with their political par
q tisanism. AT any rate, as things no,
/ are, The way to get a judicial verde
e is TO have majority OF the court o.
u our side in politics.
u