The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-01-12
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
The Supreme Courts Tribulations.


The difficulties which now SO seriously
embarrass our Supreme Court to a large ex-
tent have been created by that tribunal
itself, and if so disposed it could, without
the aid of legislation, devise remedy
therefor. The uncertain results of litiga-
ton are everywhere recognized as the
thing, above all others, that breed law
suits. And, whatever may be the cause of
it, there is no doubt that in the minds of
tile people generally the Supreme Court of
Indiana for many years has had more of
the characteristics of lottery than a court
of Justice. Any one who has mixed extern
sively with the members of the bar
of this State, is aware of the
fact that the most eminent legal
ability has not been able to form judy
ment as to what would be decided in any
given case In that court. A gentleman of
the highest standing in legal circles said to
the writer short time since, that one thing
had long been puzzle to him, and that was
the frequency with which the Supreme
Court had decided cases in way that
every lawyer in the State, except the five
trary to well-established and well-knOwn
principles of law.
The notion of the writer is that this I'M
certainty has been brought about by an en-
roneOus idea as to the true mission OF a
court for the correction of errors. 1t is
natural for judges to try to do justice in
each individual case, and the Supreme
Court, under the. promptings of this
benevolent disposition. as every lawyer IN
the State knows, has been in the constant
habit of straining principles and distOrting
records i'll order to reach desired result.
The court has constantly dlsregarded the
old maxim that hard cases make much bad
law" They undoubtedly do and then the
bad law thus made makes much trouble for
courts, and fearfully incres ses the number
OF appeals. The writer has IN his mind
notable instance that came under his own
observation, which we'll illustrates what he
is aiming TO enforce. A case had been de-
cided by Circuit Court according to we'll
established rules of law, but the decision
imposed grave hardship on the unsnccess-
ful party. The defeated attorney, did not
hesitate to say that he thought the Judge
below, under the facts, had followed the
law, but that from his knowledge of the
eases, he believed he would be justified in
appealing. He did appeal and the. case
was reversed: and his success in this in
stance imboldened not only him, but many
others, to try similar experiments. The de-
cisiOn thus extOrted, as it were, from the
court was OverIuled in less than two years
from the time it was rendered and the law
held to be as the Circuit Court had de-
termined it. In another case. of which the
writer has knowledge, the court in order to
save party from what it conceived to be
"a hardship, deliberately suppressed part
of the record, and persisted in doing so
after their attention had been called to the
fact, in a petition for rehearing.
We suppose that similar instances could he
given by almost every attorney who has
had any considerable amount of practice in
the court. This method of dispOsing of
cases in a tribunal of last resort may be
commendable in the sight of God, but there
is no doubt that it reduces litigation to a
mere game of chance, and induces
parties and attorneys TO experiment with
cases about which, after trial in the lower
court there would otherwise be no further
controversy.
There must, of necessity, be much uncer-
tainty in the results of litigation, in trial
courts. where the evidence that will be
hand, and where the, questions of law that
will arise cannot always be anticipated.
But after case is all reduced to writing
all put into recOrd-and nothing is left to
the hazard OF undeveloped things, there
ought not to be very great degree Of UNI
certainty as to the decision that will be
rendered; and the writer does not believe
there would be but for the methods he has
pointed out Is it not better that few
should suffer from what are called hard
cases" than that the whole people should be
compelled to endure the evils of an utterly
unstable system of lawsf 1t would be
short-sighted mercy that would reverse the
adrft, merely to save the life of one who
had lost his balance on the edge of preci-
pice.
MADISON, Ind, Jan. 10.
DIR. Keen the Inaugural Bail.
To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal
There have appeared in the various papers
of this city number of communications on
the subject of the Inauguration ball, which
have disseminated widely the impression
that the Methodist preachers meeting of
this city has made some announcements
respecting it and the attitude which the
President-elect should assume toward it.
Simple justice demands the statement that
the Methodist preachers meeting has not
| given any expression whatever on the SUBJ
jcct, and, moreover, that there has been no
discussion of it by the meeting. At its last
session there was appointed, by unani-
nous vote, without discussion, committee
to report whether it be advisable
to take action on the Inauguration ball,
and if SO, what that action should be. The
fact is, the meeting has SO far taken no at
titude whatever on the subject.
Another misrepresentation prevalent is
that the controversy respecting the inau-
guration ball has sprung out of some pOliti-
cal antipathy. Acandid review of the agi-
tatiOn will demonstrate clearly that such is
not the case. The storm center whence has
evolved the excitement on this subject
seems to have been a sermon protesting
against the ball, delivered a few weeks
SINCE by Rev. DIR. Naylor, of Washington,
ID. c., who is, as learn, a personal friend
of General Harrison, and an ardent
Republican,. DIR. Naylor having,
from SO influential position,
awakened the public attention on
the subject, various religious bodies took it
up. Prominent among these was the Meth
OdiSt preachers meeting az Columbus, o.,
whose action was the most radical and
mandatory. The ministers who were the
strongest advocates of these resolutions,
such as Rev. Dr.. III. w. Bennett and Rev.
DR.. S. NJ. McChesney, are unequivOcal Re-
publicans, and were enthusiastic support
ers of General Harrison. Bishop s. NJ. Mer-
rill. of Chicago, when interviewed, said:
Had l been there should have voted for
the resolution" Bishop MerrilPs Repub-
hcanism is above suspicion. The commit
tee to whom was referred the subject in the
Methodist preachers meeting, in this city
was appointed by the chairman pro tenn,
Rev. w. X. Jordan, whose political sympa-
thies are all with General Harrison.
1t is an unreasonable inference that de-
sire to vent partisan spleen is the exciting
cause of this agitation, and more unjust is
the suggestion that sectarian spite is the
animus of it. The reported interviews in
various cities show that prominent minis
tiers of all denominations deprecate the IN
auguratiOn ball as a social institution. Is
not the better explanation of the agitation
this: that there is a latent, but now tempo
rarily manifested, deep moral protest