Telegram-herald., 1891-08-02

Travelled ca foot; so for the fret das
and 81 for each day thereafter II h
travelled wlth one horse. ana SIS for tbs
fret day and SIS thereafter if with tso
horses.
lL vas claimed IA behalf OF Brooks
tAat the ordnance was uneonstlta
tcaal, null 4ad VOID and hence al
foFiei 40 Just hcatson to the justice OF
tie ofheer for the arrest. they being
therefore guilty Of false imprisonment.
The supFems Court, indeed. held ihe
ordinance nul aud void because Of IL
unreasoEaideness and says that # ell
forced g would amount TO a prohlbi.
ton OF the business. 10 also says thSt
the ordinance = unJasl because II
makes al far discrimination be-
tween residents aud non-res.dents OF
Bay City. IL practically exempts lts
residents from its provisions while i'm
p0sisg an unlust and unreasonable
license upon non-resdents. Bat hav-
ing settled the invslidity Of the ordi-
nsoea the supreme Court very Justly
stops here IA following the claim of
the plaintiff. Justice Grant distinctly
lays Il down that the defendants are
protected. the justice by h,s judicial
character and the officer by his process.
Ttis - the reasoning of Justice Grant
rs summarized by the Lansing Journal:
The position OF plaintiffs counsel was
that officers acting under uuconstitu-
ti0nal laws are liable no matter how
lnnocentIy they may act nor how ig-
nnrant they may be of the invalidity of
their process. Tina statement. the
court holds, must be confined to
Inferior judicial officers. Ii is
conceded that circuit Judges can
not be held liable for any judicial
determination even though j, re-
suits IN deprivlng the citizen tem-
porarIly OF his liberty. Circuit judges
are usually men of education and ex-
perlence IN the law while Justices of
the peace seldom have any legal educ
ton or training and the court holds
that there can be no reason why the
former should be held exempt from
liability for their errors while the latter
must be severely punished for honest
errors OF Judgment. In a case cited IN
the opinion the court severely censured
a justice of the peace for holding an
act of the Legislature unconstitutional
and expressed surprise that he should
have presumed to DO that which the
highest tribunals in the land do with
great caution. Under this rule, the
court holds, justices of the peace would
seldom hold an ordinance or an act
valid were It's constitutloually chal-
lenged in the interest of one charged
with crime for If these officers are to he
held liable in one case they must in all,
and n justice could therefore be held
liable Tor binding a person over to the
circuit court for trial if 1t should after
wards be held by the appellate court
that the act under which he was ar
rested was unconstitutional. In the
opinion OF the court public policy
forbids the adoption of such
rule, and says that it is in
evitable under any criminal proceed
ure that innocent persons will some-
times he arrested and tried. judicial
officers must of necessity be intrusted
with the investigation and trial of Of
ftnses against the law OF the State and
III such cases constitutional questions
must frequently arise for determine
ton. When these officers have acted
IN good faith the innocent is without
remedy. The constitution guarantees
no man immunity from arres. 1t
guarantees him fair and impartial
trial and 1t has provided him appellate
courts to which he may resort for the
correction of errors committed by the
inferior courts. With this he must be
content. The court concludes that
these inferior tribunalsd shoul be left
To the exercise of their honest judg-
ment and when they have so exercised
1t they are exempt from civil liability
for errors. This IS the only rule which
can secure proper administration OF
our criminal laws and the interest of
the individual must in such cases yield
to the interest of tho public. The
judgment of the court was therefore
reversed. All the justices concurred in
the opinion"
In writing This opinion Justice Grant
has grasped the true principle, and any
other rule established would be arti-
hcial, unreasonable ami unjust. Any
abuse of power can still be punished,
tut an honest discharge Of duty is en-
titled 10 protection.
In senator PETERS recent speech at