Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1892-01-28
AN EXTRAORDINARY PROCEEDING.

WnaC are kllOWn as the alconol tttHeS
took new and unexpected turn in the
Circuit Court in this city last Thurs
day.
After the conviction of DIR. Lomly
under the instructions of the court,
the defense seemed to suddenly lose
confidence in the pleas set up at the
beginning that the local option law
had made it legal to sell alcohol, and
that even if it did not, the Campbell
Code did not prohibit its sale. True,
the Campbell Code contains a section
which seems to cover these cases like a
blanket, for it expressly provides
that
Merchants and others carrying on
business or trade who may tell or give
away liquors either vinuouS or spir
ituous at their places of business in
less quantities than one gallon for any
purpose whatsoever, shall be subject to
pay the regular retail tax fixed by the
county or corporate authorities of the
place where such business is conducted,
and it shall be the duty of the sheriff
to assess and collect such tax where
ever he is informed that such sales or
gifts have been made, and such persons
on conviction shall be fined not ex-
ceeding $1,000"
! But. said the defense. alcohol is not
liquor. either vinous or spirituous.
| Alcohol is alcohol.
But they not only abandoned the line
of defense set up the day before, but
after the conviction, they set upon the
court. 1t was the courts fault and in
fluence, they alleged, that led to the
indictmens. 1t was alleged i'll motion
that the court had entered the grand
jury room and exercised personal and
official influence to secure the indict-
ments. They disqualified the court to
try them. and Judge Chrisman had to
descend from the bench and trial
proceeded against him, so to speak.
Ex- Chancellor Mayes was selected by
lot as a special Judge and the spectacle
was for the first time presented in this
State, so far as we ever heard, where
the criminals were the prosecutors of
the court for expounding the law.
Both Judge and District Attorney
were required to stand aside, while
evidence was introduced before the
special Judge to prove that they had
transgressed the bounds of official
propriety.
And what was this evidence. Why,
that the grand jury differed with the
District Attorney as to his exposition
of the law. and the Judge was called
in to decide between them-not as to
the facts. but the law. Members of
the grand jury who were introduced
as witnesses testified that Judge Chris
man abruptly stopped them the mo-
ment they proposed to state to him a
single fact He even refused to exam
inc and construe the statute till he had
time to carefully examine it. and finally
construed it to forbid the sale of alco-
hol without license. That was all
Special Judge Mayes decided that the
regular Judge and District Attorney
were not guilty, as charged, and re-
fused to quash the indictments.
We cannot close this reference to
this extraordinary proceeding, without
expressing few reflections that sug-
gest themselves irresistibly. OF course
the indicted parties were acting on
the advice of their attorneys and the
responsibility for the whole proceed
ings is on their counsel. We are not
thoroughly versed in the professional
ethics which govern lawyers and courts,
but the action of the attorneys for the
defense toward the court in this in
stance. seems to us, as we have already
intimated, most extraordinary. II the
point was purely a technical one,
whether either Judge Chrisman or
District Attorney Hudson had been
guilty of any official indiscretion, it
could easily have been ascertained by
the attorneys for the defense in quiet
way, without the slightest public dis
play or reflection on these officers.
They are both men of established char
acter and veracity, and would them
selves have given the facts concerning
the alleged misconduct with which
they were charged, if they had been
questioned on the subject before being
virtually arraigned as they WERE
So far as Judge Chrisman was con-
cerned, it was tantamount to charging,
with scarcely the shadow of justifica-
ton, that he was ignorant of his own
duties and privileges as Judge, or
knowingly prostituted his high office
for the qualification of vindictive
spirit toward certain class of crimi-
nals,- either of which if true, would
and should disgrace him.
1t looks like the allegations were in
tended to degrade the court, and if
they had not been Immediately tried,
would have hung over that officer,
paralyzing his usefulness and discred-
iting him before the country.
AS it is, the proceedings will react
on it's authors. The law-breakers, for
one short day, through their attorneys,
took possession of the Court, but their
/