The Corvallis gazette. [volume] (Corvallis, Or.) 1862-1899, 1895-08-08
CORVALLIS. eREeoN, AUG. 8, 1885.
D0LPH VS.. COURT, BAR, ET AL.

Mr.. Dolph's latest efforts to
keep himself before the public
have not added to his popularity.
The real facts in the Schmidt
case SEEM to- be that he attempted
to bully the circuit and supreme
courts into rendering a decision
in favor of his clients against all
legal usages and laws concerning
the matter. Mr.. Dolph had. a
legal remedy if his client had
been wronged, but he did not
choose to avail himself of it.
Instead Of bringing an original
suit to determine the right of an
attorney to have such a decree
taken as was done in this case,
or to- determine whether or not
the fee allowed was excessive, as
probably any other attorney in
the state would have done, Mr..
Dolph appealed directly to the
supreme court from the decision
in the original foreclosure suit.
In this suit these matters were
not at issue, aud the decree rem
dered was a consent decree,
which DEGREES courts have decid-
ed are not appealable. Mr..
Dolph claims it was not a consent
decree, but his interest in the
case seems to have warped his
Judgment.
Courts must follow precedent
Their decisions are a guide to
people in their dealings with one
another, and their interpretations
of the law should be final unless
grossly unjust. Ex-Supreme
Judge Thayer comes to the rescue
of Mr.. Dolph, but many of his
own decisions, in which he over
rode precedent and general usage,
gave an uncertainty to the deci-
sions of the supreme court that
still fingers. Law is for the
many; and law necessarily is not
always justice. Stepping outside
the bounds and restrictions of the
rules the courts have made for
themselves and those the legisla-
ture has made for them, to grant
one more equitable relief, may
work some injustice to many
others. In the Schmidt case
lawyers almost unanimously
agree, and say that the supreme
court could have rendered no
other decision.
Leaving aside the question as
TO whether the decision of the
supreme court was according to
law or not, the letter of Mr..
Dolph was an outrageously dis
courteous one. The Oregonian
apologies and explains for Mr..
Dolph, saying he did not reflect
upon the integrity or purity of
the supreme judges, but his
remarks concerning a disreputa-
BILE transaction were applied only
to the original transaction. If
that be so, Mr.. Do1ph has an
unhappy faculty of saying what
he does not mean. He says that
the supreme court sanctioned the
transaction and that no honest
man or upright judge can approve
of it. That sounds very like a
reflection upon the honesty of the
supreme judges, and in the quota
ton, from his brief, that he
Incorporates in his letter, he
directs still another unpardona-
bic insult toward the supreme
court.
The decisions of the supreme
court are not above criticism, but
when a man publicly arrays him
self against the unanimous deci-
sion of the highest court of the
state and against the view of an
almost unanimous bar, he should
do so discreetly, courteously and
in gentlemanly manner. Mr..
Dolph should have learned by
this time that the people OF Ore
gon are not prone to fall down
and worship him. His views are
no more authoritative than those
of any other attorney in the state
of good judgment, long practice
and studious habits. There is
hardly decision rendered but
some attorney considers that
the court erred in rendering it.
These attorneys generally have
too much sense, however, to rush
to the newspapers with their
grievances. There is some hope
that when Mr.. Dolph has been
long enougha a resident of Oregon
he will learn TO he sensible and