The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-02-28
For Aldermen
For Deiegatesi
UNJUST ATTACKS on JUDGES.

So long a. attacks upon a court are con-
aned To irresponsible or VIGOROUSLY tn
nuenced newspapers II II best TO pass
them by without notice. For months the
Federal court for this circuit has been the
object OF persistent misrepresentation and
caiutnny at tho hands OF certain Mime
sofa newspapers subject 10 Influences
which feared the removal OF the head
quarters OF the Northern Pacific from st.
Paul 10 this Coast. For a time. those at
tacks seemed TO be- made more with the
purpose OF eurrying favor with local rail-
road subordinates than of particularly
diserediting Judges Gilbert and Hanford.
1t resulted, however In dispatches being
ser... abroad in much the same tone. until
newspapers of standing have been made
mediums for publicity of false and I'M
just reports.
The New York Sun has referred TO thu
matter. but with its usual perspicacity Is
not mlsisd by the efforts made to extol one
court az the expense OF another. Without
referring moro particularly now TO tho
SUMS Immediate cause OF criticism IT
would seem that even lsynan would not
ind In the decision OF Judges Gilbert and
Hanford and In the order OF Justice Field
any justification for tho statement made
by a ST. Paul newspaper that 1.-The Federal
Judges OF tbs West may rebel" or for the
more unjust inference that. so far 81 the
court Is concerned. there are influences
object the division and Generalization of
the Northern Pacific as system and as
a great property"
The people OF this state have implicit
faith In tho integrity OF Judge Hanford.
but that confidence would not have much
force as an argument among those who DO
not know him. Any act OF Justice. done IN
his defense. should deal therefore with tho
facts IN the case. II IL not denied that the
proceedings were regular in this court.
There were petition. notice. hear
Ing and decision by the court. With the
legal aspect OF the case beyond this We
need not concern ourselves. IL seems
necessary osly TO show that. whatever
tina motive Of the court. thore was
ample judicial authority for its action and
sound legal principles at its back, With
these forsiacations court should not be
subject 90 asperslons upon its good faith.
II there ia any cause for criticism IL would
seem to lilo with those authorities which
have proceeded irregularly.
The supreme court has not questioned
tho leeal sueicieucy OF the attitude taken
by Jgdge gilbert or Judge Hanford. and
q does not seem 70 have intended any re-
buke 10 them. Il did not even sit as = court.
there was Bo petition before *. no tran
script % the proceedings of the lower
court before the judges who heard the
arguments ~ counsel. and there was no
order Of court such as issues In regular
practice. The appellate proceeding such
as u was-possessss unique features. and
While tho highest eourt seems 20 have been
governed ~ considerations OF eNpediency.
whose wisdom IL is not fer us 20 question.
there Is no shadow ef a reelection upon tho
action % "the weseera Judges" whose
motives have beea 50 unaeserveily cues
toned. ana whose legal position has been.
BY newspapers. - shamefully ulsrspye-
santed