The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-08-03
JUDGE TAYLOR's DECISION.
Mr.. Nicholson Reads 1t and Criticises
Some Of the Jurist's observations.

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journals
Having just read Judge Taylor's some
what remarkable decision on the new liquor
law, it may not be out of place for lay
man to make a few observations. 1t will
be noticed that no attempt is made to de-
clare the law UNCONSTITUTIONAL but ii is de-
clared to be imperative. The Judge. how
ever, does not seem to be impressed with
that fact SO much as that the last General
Assembly did not know how to make laws.
In fact he Is impressed with the thought
that the members were set of igno-
ramuses, with not the capacity and in
tegrity to draft laws, and not the moral
courage to enact them when properly draft
ed,'' and because of this opinion he begs
the people not to criticise him. The sus-
picion is strong and the presumption great
that the political complexion of the Legis-
lature had everything TO do with the
Judges moral curtain lecture to the people
for even daring to elect an assembly Of
such political proclivities. Had not the
Judge gone out of the way to attack the
personal standing and integrity of the
members of the General Assembly by means
of a stump-speech under the guise of a le-
gal opinion, the decision rendered would de-
serve little more than passing notice. Had
Deen
dignified character that usually clothes
judicial decisions, IL might then have COM
manded the respect and even confidence of
many people, but with the central: central idea al
ions designed 10 let the author OF them
down easy before the people, IL will evil
IDENTIFY not be received with Overwhelming
enthusiasm, even by those who hoped for d
decision adverse to the law.
Judge Taylor holds that the penalty pro-
yided In Section does not hold good, un-
1occ r,f np1 oh <xad xx*t$ l.
being violated: and yet does he not see thar
a section has been violated when any Of it's
parts have been disregarded? chain Is
broken when single link Is broken, and
Ii Is not necessary that every link be broken
or that the entire chain be broken to say
that the chain is broken. When a part or
the whole is impaired, the whole must suf-
fer In consequence. This is but a part Of
the common unwritten law, and no techni-
cal construction based upon precedent can
overthrow Ii. Because the penalty applies
to 1.-THE foregoing sections" and not to the
different provisions of the foregoing seq
tions," the Judge holds the penalty inopera-
tons means 1.-THE foregoing sections In
their entirety" And yet the section does
not say that. and the Judge has no more
language T does not say it. than he would
have had to construe IL. as the counsel for
the State held as applying when there was
presence of a reasonable doubt. the State
had just as tenable grounds as had the
Judge who made the section mean what IL
did not say, but when. in addition to tech
meal reasoning, IL is known that there is
the common and universal law that an in
jured part impairs the whole the State has
the only reasonable and tenable grounds,
and the Judges decision is necessarily far
fetched.
The Judge talks about preserving mems
rights and liberties by the integrity OF the
courts. II the different provisions OF the
section are necessary for the maintenance
OF law and the protection OF society against
public evils-and the Judge does not even
deny that they are necessary or just-thefe
IL then injustice in deciding in their favor
when the universal law leads strongly
in that direction in this case. In fact. is NOT
there Injustice 10 the people when a point Is
strained unduly and beyond reason against
them? Ii b extremely fortunate that there
is a higher tribunal TO which the point may
go sooner or later, and when IL speaks there
will be no stump-speeches 10 mar the dig
nifty Of whatever decision il may render.
g F. NICHOLSON.
Logansport. Ind, Aug. 2.