New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-09


Moreover tie NJ lcntOn Of the facts is in the in
crest of litgants who have cases pending in the
United s ates Courts as well as of members OF the
legal profession throughout the country.
HOW REPORTER OTTO IMPROVED AN OPINION.
1t will not be amiss 10 cite single example
showing the manner in which Reporter Otto " i'm
proved the language Of the Court. The case cited
is the somewhat celebrated one of Kilbourn against
Thompson Scrgeant-at-Arms Of the House OF hep
resentatves, the opinion in which was prepared
by Associate Justice Miller, who is noted for the
purity and terseness of his literary style. Judge
Miller wrote:
The Speaker thercupon issued the defendant Thom
son. Sergeant Arms OF the House, his WRIT with inc
seal and the Speakers duly affixed to
IT, which writ after recitng the foregoing resolutions IN
haec ycrba adds Now. therefore, arc hereby COM
manded execute the accordingly" The pea thch
ayers that the authority Of this writ the defendant
Thompson did said Kbourne, using no more force
than necessary and kept him In custody, Ia the
common JAIL until he released by a writ OF hat2as
corpus issued by the Hon David h Cartier. Chief JUS
ce OF the Supreme Court OF the District Of Columbia.
which the tIespasses complained or and none
other.
And this is what Reporter Otto substituted for
Judge Millcr's language:
That Dy viItue and execution Of said warrant, ac-
cordng to its and effect the defendant as such
Sergeant Arms, in order to arrest the said kboun
and convey him in custody to the common jail OF tae
District Of Columbia in obedience TO the resolutions and
orders aforesaid, him then and there gently
laid his hands on him to him, and dill then aud
there him By his body and take him into custody
and forthwith convey him 10 the common jail OF the
District Of Columbia ani did keep him in custody
therein until the eighteenth day Of April 1875, when
AMI which day response 10 wit Of h1beas corpus
issued by order Of the chief Justice Of She
Supreme Court Of the District OF Columbia ant
directed to the defendant a. scgeantaAr requiring
him produce the body OF Kboum before the said Chief
Justice the Court House In the City Of Washington In
the District Of Columbia, ana by direction and order OF
the sad House Of Representatives the defendont Ser
geaHtatA Arms conveyed the said Kilbourn in custody
from the common jail OF said District to said Court House
and delivered him into the custody OF the
Marshal for the District OF Columbia has he mad said
Kbouln in his custody since sIh delivery said Mar
sha, which the same several supposed uesplsscs
complained Of and no other
JUDGE" OTTO AS AGAINST JUSTICE MILLER.
Further on according to the reporter Mr..
Justice Miller, after stating the case, delivered the
opinion of the Court
1t will be observed that Judge Otto did not
allow Justice Alilers statement of the case to
appear, but substituted an approved statement
of his own. Judge Miller wrote that Thompson
did arrest said kilbOurne, using no more force
than was necesSary.?7 In the polished style of
the reporter this incident is thus described: The
defendant as such Scrgeant-at1 Arms, in order to
arrest the said kilbourn went TO him and
then and there gently laid his hands on him to
arrest him, and did then and there arrest him by
his body and take him into custody
How did Reporter Otto know that Thompson
gently laid his hands on Kilbourn, and how
could Thompson arrest hilbourn except by his
body ?-are questions which might suggest them
selves as not impertnent. 1t may be said that
the alteration in this case = lminatcrdl, put II
is none the less true that it vitlated the record
of the Court, and was utterly indefenslble on any
and every ground.
Agair. when Justice Miller wrote: Which are
the same trespasscs complained or and none other
Reporter Otto took the liberty OF substituting:
Which are the same several supposed tresiaSsgS
complained of and no other 30 la"ycr WI,
deny that the Interpolation OF the words several
supposed constitutes material altcra-
ZION of the record. 1t Is probably
needless 10 cite other examples of altcr-
tions material and immatcrial, which occur IN the
official edition" of Ottos reports Ill the Iudg-
ments themselves well as in the syllabl ana
numbered by thousands. 1t is an open secret that
the Court was glad to be rid Of Reporter otto.
REPORTER WALLACE As A LITERARY GENIUS.
OF his predecessor. Wallace it is said that Mr.
Justi.e Clifford declared that " if Wallace did not
rc,ian he would \ comparison of Wallacc's re-
ports as published with the official records of the
Court shows that ne quite rs often inclined to
report himself as the Court. Judging by scmc of
bis literary antics a reporter. he was what Arte-
mas Ward would call "amOoSln' Inc prcHce
Of Wallacc's first volume reminds one Of the reply
Of Alexander H. Stephens to another member oi the
House who complained of the loquaclty OF Alr.
Blackburn cf Kentucky, whenever he was called
to preside over that body aS Speaker pro TEN
Why,7 said the Georgia statesman. Joe
thinks that the chief duty OF the Speaker Is 20
speak,
Wallace thought that one of the chief duties
Of n court reporter was to report not only the
opinions of the Court bat suci, other matters a.
ncht fall under hi, observation NJ the hearing OF
the case and accordingly he lamcnts that ne Is
OBLIGED TO rcport decisions which be did not hear
when they fell from the lips of the Justices Buj
Mr. Wallace had some other original IDEAS, one ot
which was to give fancy titles to cases FOR eN-
annie one case is entitled Mrs AlcNanders Cot
tom under VIII ch title no lawyer would thlnk OF
Iool,inr for the ease of the United States agt.
Alexander Such fancy and misleading titles per
wade his reports 80
But il was rs an author that Wallace shonc with
the brightest lustrc one would hardly expect to
find i'm a dry. maiter-Otfact court report passage
from one of Shal;espeares plays, ana yet an e\-
CsSiOn used by counsel IN the ease o. larNcr ast
phottepacc-an action on IA bill OF conveyance
jnsDirod Wallace to quote from memory mark
thc phrasc-a considerable portion of the dialogue
between King John and Hubert in the play. OF
King john In Introducing this citation Wal
lace modcstly, but confidently. remarks
" Every one recalls the two great scenes
in King John before and near the
death of Arthur Il is p"rh9pS, needless 70 oh
serve that this citation from Shakespeare sheds
strong not to say radiant Light on tho legal qnes-
tions involved in the Gaze of Parker AGAINST Phette-
place and the opinion Of Mr.. Justice Nelson thereon
CASES AND JUDGMENTS EXPLAINED
In the case of Burr against Duryee. which In
volvcd questions of tho abuse of the patent laws
as we'll as cf the infringement of patent for felt
ing machine, Reporter Wallace, who appears 10
have discarded entirely the statement OF the case
prepared by Justice Grier. dcvOtcs about lVe pages
TO an explanation Of the art" OF fetlng an eX-
tract from which reads rs follows:
IN Asia fclcd wool used at very early lay for
making tents cushions and carpets Il was known TO
the Greeks a. early the age OF Homer and Is men
toned by him and also by Xcnophon oni lierodotuS
It's Use was introduced into Rome ffom the Greeks,
anl It Is mentioned by Ti.Hy. Felt hat makers ap-
pcafcd I'm France in Nuremberg. anl in Bavaria early
in the fourteenth ccniWy
OF course. this and much more like it which fol
I IN ui,o that Rox-