St. Paul daily globe., 1892-03-03
ABaD PRACTICE.

There is one feature of the contrO-
versy between MIR. BLAINE and his
daughter-in-law which is a legitimate
subject of newspaper comment. Mr..
BLAINE's unwise and unnecessary let
ter would probably never have been
written had it not been for the attack
made on his wife by the judge at Dead
wood before whom the divorce case was
tried. Young Mrs. BLAINE very SEN
sibly and reasonably disclaims responsi-
biIity for this, and it seemed needlessly
cruel that she should be the target for
the retaIiatory blows it has ELECTED.
But, in general, some one is sure to suf-
fer in &C greater or less degree when a
court goes out of its way to preach
moral lessons or to express opinions on
the motives of Iitigants, or on their COM
parative claims to the respect of their
fellows.
Judge THOMAS, of Deadwood. is
highly spoken of by people who know
him. and no doubt is capable and
courteous officer. But he has been
guilty on this occasion of an error
which is all too common at the preseut
day. The cause before him was SIM
pie one, in which woman asked for a
decree of divorce because her husband
had deserted her. 1t had no sensational
aspects except such as grew out of the
prominence of the people involved. 1t
was his duty to listen to the witnesses,
and if they sustained the allegations of
4 - LII, 30 on on6 nrdnr III6tr
ment to be entered accordingly. In
stead of doing this, the court wrote a
long review of the evidence, eulogizing
the plaintiff and eastigatlng with Sc
verest language, not only the conduct
of the defendant, but also that of his
mother, who was not party to the suit
at all.
This was all wrong, from whatever
point of view it is regarded. Legally a
Judge, under the prevailing code, should
make his findings of fact the simplest
statement of his deductions from the
testimony which has been offered. They
should not recite the evidence nor dis
cuss it in any way. Judge THOMAS
course was therefore departure from
Illc WGl1-SelIlGu dIlu PihO-
tice. But, apart from this, it was pure
impertinence for him to either pay COM
pliments or express criticisms. The re-
lations between the elder and the
younger Mrs. BLAINE were none of his
business except in as far as knowl-
edge of this was essential to his reach
ing decision. Having reached a de-
cisiou, he ought to have dismissed all
that led up to it from his mind. 1t
wonld be as justifiable for doctor to
administer public lecture to patient
as for Judge to act as this South Da-
kota magistrate has felt called on to do.
Trial judges frequently file memo
randa with their findings, justifying.
themselves. or explaining the steps by
which they arrived at their conclusions.
These are usually interesting and help
full to attorneys. But not even they are
necessary. Judge WILKIN overthreW
the Infamous lien law of 1887 with not a
word of explanation or elaboration, and
what he did affords safe example for
others to follow. But while there are
no objections to the accompanying men,
oranda, as memoranda, to use them as a
vehicle for assaults of any sort is per-
nicious and outrageous custom. Judges
sometimes have their heads turned
by the high seats on which they
sit and conceive of themselves
as the anointed censors Of con-
temporary society. They rebuke
lawyers practicing before them with an
affectation of superior virtue, and de-
clare their hystericaI sympathy with
one side of case and their horror at
the depravity or shamelessness of the
other. When they do any of these
things they step outside of their sphere
and begin to encroach on the bailiwick
of the priests and police officers, who,
according to our system, have monop-
oily of the moral culture of the COM
munity. Like everybody who tries to
do something he is not trained for, they
cause good deal of trouble by their
interference, sometimes to themselves,
and sometimes, as in the instance under
consideration, to innocent people, who
are wounded by this animadversiveness
on their conduct.