Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-03-12
THE CHIEF JUSTICES OPINION.


Through a Newspaper Instead Of from
the Bench severely Criticised by Mem
bers Of the Bar--Tho Case Has No
Parallel in Jurisprudence.
The opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Comcgys in the Burke Roche divorce cuse
through the medium Of the Morning. AcNs
Of ON Friday has awakened more criticism
than any lltterance over delivered by the
venerable iurist during his long incum-
bency. This opinion came IN the FORM of
n letter to the Editor Of the Morning
Ae,nS,h and reads;
SIR: Az the close of the lelcgrapllic dis
patch from Wilmington published in the
New Yor! HciUd Of to-day, giving mn ac-
count Of the final judgment d thespprrior
court in the Burke Roche case, there is
this paragraphs
"Stil tic chief Justice did not concur in
the decree. but allowed his associates On
the bench to sign the document. Tim
reason for this action on the part at the
chief Justice was, IL ia said not because he
did moi think Mrs, Roche was entitled t. u
divorce, bui because lie thought il wnuld
make Delaware q place of refuge for Other
ill-mated couples"
Who il was that is reported rs having
SJd what the correspondent OF the UciuiR
TelatcS--whcther one Of that class of super
serviceable friends from whom public men
desire of all things, to be saved, or one u
tl'lNN Nltll NiIlll llltN NV NAt'I'Ell
have To deal, il would be interesting to me.
81 least, 10 knew. But that thtlrte reason
Of my dissent from the judgment Of my
brethren may not lie matter either OF
speculation % misrepresentation llafc 20
state that ! did nut find the least evidence
IN the case that tendrl even lo show that
The petitioners husband was guilty either
uf the offence Of dpscrtionOr wilrul neglect
Ia provide for tic support of his wife, to
those grounds, OF rather terms, az Malci-
aoo8 III Ne tam There wore no other legal
causes alleged in the petition.
J.. II. CoMEaYS.
DovER, DEL, March lth lsDl
There is no denial Of the authenticity NJ
the letter and il may be taken for granted
that ii appeared in the NfrS inst as il was
penned by the chief Justice.
The spectacle Of a chief Justice or in fact
any other member of the court retaining
from any utterances when the ease was on
trial and to afterward deliver through the
newspapers his opinion passing severe
structure upon his associates on the bench
is SD novel that il stands practically alone
in the history of Delaware jurisprudence.
Nearly every lawyer in the CITY Is dis
cllssing the affair since and there is but
one opinion expressed and that is to the
effect that the chief Justice has committed
q great breach of propriety. But few Of
the attorneys would speak at length upon
the matter and none would consent To be
quoted, but it was easily gathered that the
bar regarded the matter as practically UNI
justiliable
said one attorney not at all interested in
the case under consideration, such thing
has never before occurred IN the history Of
delaware. 1t is an outrage that the chief
justice should pass such structures
upon the decision Of his associates.
# he. had had any opinion Of a
dissenting nature To have expressed
he should have done so when the court
was in session, and not have exploited his
Views with the structures they contain
through the newspapers He was over
ruled in the court and now comes forward
assert his views in the newspapers and
at the same time to so sharply criticise the
honest opinions of his associates. The
parading of the secrets of the conference
chamber 70 the public through the press
is regarded by the lawyer quoted as a
breach of propriety and good taste The
law of impeachment as applied to the
judiciary was looked UP in several offices
this morning, SO severe and emphatic is
the condemnation of the chief Justices
course.
The position of the chief justiceupon the
case throughout is also discussed and criti-
cised. II is known that he has been bit
terly opposed to the divorce throughout.
- - l e: 's :, ~ pS.it!oheu loI Whs
tsii.uu - ~ eii.uet la9g put' saSs tne
unknown reason by the chief Justice until
he could delay 1t no longer. The unusual
l'Ioece1liis u iIlslstllig thal we argument
.ii's,e H. puniic - lsp P.lt lotWnru "
di ft iiiuslFatioil oi tile court aeslre 70
W. ~ NJ utsuIne, ~ ~ hai uiliuI
~ tileet, lilisiiitcl 10 snoMeu
I;,,ht nv "p ~. t I'M S yase ~ lS fue
lisn. anu Ii.s uot!plless tl ieo5 ellecG o.
eNeli s.IeIigliiehins the IiialhtliIs case IN
Ihe sell.lilieilt q INC pubic; ihere was
~ ullsi.i2n q. MY stast u tne ulyorte
XVI y ne Iespoiu III.
uii.l w tWo usaoGil,e.l Justices iouliq that
siu II; r ~ ogsere'ot aa azure 70
i the chlef justice had different view he
the bench and not through the newspa-
papers There is no precedent for such
proceedings,
n,iiii,cti,,s ,f ftl;of I,st;,o f,,,,, ,,,,..,
letter is shown BY the following extract
taken from long editorial in the News of
Friday, presumably from the pen of
huitor Sh"rtN livery one else who has
s alLtnJ ol,glS ano u has peea alser,
10 he cntirnI,, ra"nectfnI e. ali tba 80, ~
cesses Of Justice IL our State--coerced or or
beguilod.H Here it is directly charged that
the two associates were coerced or beguiled
into granting a divorce. 1t is asserted
practically that they were opposed to the
a tIsn pIli were yrs , lea % tramPle upon
,eti 9" ~ d,hnr 'iii't sotie proper
Editor sperry is regarded rs mono
maniac UPON TIE subject Of the divorce Ia
question and there is general disposition
to attribute it to personal motives. At
every. mention Of the plaintiffs name he
aas glNem evidence o. inc greatest mental
s sroh alt ias uisiardhgiS zen
whatever ~ In Nifh the 9 caaa u d naeS ~;
IL. 49, w s"eI' ,''N9 pti'