The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1884-06-26
THE CONTEMPT CASE
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
The Compliant hads to The Court on Tuesday b,
hr. u. u. Bssa.ii, the Attorney. on which The
Action Of the Coart Is Baa.d-rhs Natter
Complained Of and tho ReasoaI.

n...# d y
Following Is the text OF The paper pre.
senled to tho Supreme Court OF Appeals on
Tuesday by Mr.. Il N. Russell 1ss ~
To tho Honorable Judges Of The Supreme Court OF
s5AppeaL Of Vest Wrginta: 20
Az 10 well known to tho court, there WIS
pending here on tho 18Th day Of June, 1884,
and there 10 now pending and undetermined,
= proceeding Of mandamus at the relation oi
Joseph u. Miller, Auditor, against T. II.
Buchanan, Assessor Of Brooke county. Thit
proceeding involves the constitutionslity Of
ton OF chapter 1?, Ao's 1881, and tina prop,i.
ely Of what IL well Known throughout lii,
Rts's ~ the Supplemental Assessment Or.
DER" ~ arj ~, u ~ as
| have the honor 10 be q member OF III,
bar Of this court, and to be Tho counsel for tn.
relator In the cause referred to.
On the Is b day OF June the WHEELING
lSrILLlaENcAh, q newspaper OF general circt
lalion, published In tbs city OF Wheeling
contained an editorial article referring Il.
prerlly to The questions l have muntiolsd q,
involved In the raid cause, and referring b.,
implication 10 that caute itself. This article
stated that three out Of the four judges oil
your honorable court had told Democratic
caucus, more than year ago. In effect thu,
the court would sustain the "5upplementa
Assessment Order and hold the exemption
statute unconstitutional. The article thei
say q that It was not intended that "the pur.
pose OF the court" should be made public
and intimates that the publication OF I've pul.
pose may induce the court to change IT.
mind" | beg leave 10 submit with this com.
munication copy Of the newspaper contain.
Ing the article referred to-. ..,.,
This article has every appearance OF an a'.
tempt 10 Affect the decision OF the court IL
the cass OF Miller vs.. Buchanan, and to In.
timidate 1t into deciding sgsinst the relAtor
While do not believe That sny effect will bt
produced upon the court which will sffec,
that case, still deem 1t my duty as an { III GEL
Of the court, and as counsel for the relator,
not to permit so paipable an assault upon thu
| lion OF Justice TO pas unn6tlced. sg':
The firm OF Frew, Campbell L. Hart, com.
posed Of John Frew, A. W. Campbell and c.
| 8. Hart, are. as am informed, the publish
ers OF the WHEELING lNTrLLlaEHcKR ,I
Should the members Of this court so ia,
forget their duty and dignity as 10 express Ii
advance, for political or other purposes, their
opinion uInn cases which may come before
them as judges, no one would bs quicke,
than 10 condemn such a practice. II /,
could be shown me that any OF your honor.
had been guilty OF what the lNrkLLloxXcxE
lays to your charge, would willingly ! IL
the editors OF that paper In bringing tho mat
ter before the proper tribunal, 1T Inc props,
| time. Is MN
But whether these charges arc true or falae
the CT 20 OF Miller vs. Buchanan Ia now pend
ing, and you alone must decide 1t. While i,
is before you your conduct with respect tt
the cfse iilslf and the questions involved IL
It, 10 not the proper subjsc. in my opinion
for public cflticism.
Dlsclaimipg any feeling Of resentment Of
snimosity against the publishers OF the In
rxL1IsENcER, and acting solely from des'f.
TO do my professional duty,-I now lay the
msttey before the court, and shall not fee
that am CALLED upon either 10 suggest to thu
court what 1t SHAH do In the matter, nor tt
take part In the prosecution Ct any proceed
iDgs which may BE- instituted should The
a'''it - b. Henry NJ. RussxLL.
June o. 1894 p