The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1896-03-31

is not run in the interest of the Order.
J. w. DENMARK.
SAMPLES OF COURT JUSTICE.
Fresh Specimens of How Little Our
Courts are Worth and How Rotten
Some of Them are.
1t is clearly evident that our politi-
clans, with a few honorable eXcep
tions, are as rotten as rot a be. The
same is true of our courts. We have
some honorable lawyers and judges.
Some juries return honest verdicts.
But cowardly judges, corrupt judges,
and picked juries are the bane of our
land. Some sheriffs are especially
noted for their ability to always sum
mons jurors who can be counted on
to thwart justice. County commits
sioners aid in the work, of course.
What are we coming to7 Even the
Supreme court Of the United States
can't be expected to render an honest
decision when ~plutocracy is involved.
1t is a notable fact that one of
the U. S. Supreme Court judges
changed front inside Of t~Wenty-four
hours when the income tax question
was before them, and it is boldly
charged that he is richer by several
hundred thousand dollars.
Pretty much everybody in this sec
fTon "a tho C+of 70 10 moro 0r Lose fo nOi1or
with the case of Arlington VS.. AIRING
ton. Mrs. Arlington, of Nash county,
sued for divorce from her husband in
1870 or II, we believe. 1t took a long
time to get it, but finally the Superior
court and the Supreme court both de
cided in her favor. Then began a bat
tie for some $50, 900 worth Of property
to which she had fallen heir previous
IL, but which seems to have been held
by her late husband and others.
Prominent lawyers became mixed up
in the case as counsel for both sides.
The case was moved from county to
county, from Superior to Supreme
court, thenc9 back again. 1t seems
that all the tricks of every region were
employed in the case Il defeat justice,
to prolong matters. 1t is not our
province to decide upon the legal as
poets of the case, but it seem that the
Supreme court decided in Mrs. AIRING
toms favor, and in recent years able
Judges like Brown, McIver, Shuford
and others also decided that she and
her children were entitled to the prop
erty. But some unknown influence has
interferred and legal subterfuges have
been used to keep her out of
the possession of the property.
Thousands of dollars worth of
property, and it is darkly limited at,
that crime itself, has been the object
in keeping her out Of the property,
Notwithstanding the law says it is hers
and the courts have 80 decided. At
her earnest solicitation the last legisla-
ture appointed a committee to investi
gate the matter, a committee with full
court powers. But even before the leg
islature adjourned the influence" was
at work on two members of the com
mittee. The finest of WHISTLES were
used, it is said; at any rate two of the
three members on the committee were
on a prolonged drunk by the time the
legislature adjourned. The Influence
kept them so. They were sent home
and the committee has met twice since,
but the same two members were al
ways g~lorioualy and ingloriously drunk
before much could be done. The whole
thing has been and continues to be an
affair that should bring the blush OF
shame to the cheeks of every good
citizen in the State, and forever damn
those who are res snsible. Indeed il
is likely that a number of prominent
people would give a good deal to know
that they had never been mixed up ir
the matter in such an uncomfortable
way.
Recently a new, or a number of new
lodges have been adopted in this cele
brated case. One who is in a position
to know, has handed us the following
brief statement of how justice has beer
dispensed in this case in the last two
years. 1t is as follows:
R A. P. Cooley, Referee, reported tc