The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-09-19

case, 10 WhlCh we referred lsAt Wcek. INC
purpose OF tho suit was to prevent the Post.
master-General from carrying into effect an
order which removed John q. Woods from tho
position of Superintendent OF Mails at Louis
willie, Ky, and replaced him in the railway
mail service, from which no had beon pro
NOTED. We pointed out that tho great weight
Of authority in this country was against the
granting Of injunctiye relief in such cases, the
appropriate course being TO sue for reinstate-
mcnt, and such seems to have been tho Wow
taken by Mr.. Justice Cox, for he dismissed
the petition on the ground that the petitioner
did not present a cause OF action cognizable in
a court Of equity. Tho opinion, however. dis
cusses the validity Of the executive orders Of
President Cleveland and President Mckinley
In regard TO removals from tho classified civil
service, and holds that those orders do not
confer upon the officers or employees to whom
they relate any right to be retained in the ser.
vico which the courts can enforce. This con.
clusion has caused considerable disturbance
among the advocates Of civil service reform,
and they will probably ask Congress for some
additional legislation which will give TO such
executive orders the sanction Of law.
The Governor on Thursday appointed Mr..
William N. Cohen to be q Justice Of the Su-
preme Court in the First Judicial district In
place OF the late John Sedgwick. We are sure
that Mr.. Cohen will prove a worthy successor
Of a worthy Judge. He has had great expert
ence as an advocate, especially In the trial OF
railroad casos, and we doubt whether there 10
q member of the New York bar who has been
Of late years more constantly or actively tamil
lar with the everyday practice of our courts.
Like tho newly appointed District Judge OF the
United States in Brooklyn. Mr.. Cohen is a
graduate Of Dartmouth College. In making
this appointment the Governor has done wisely.
The State Of Connecticut has just lost q dis.
tinguished citizen by the death Of Augustus
II. Fem, one Of the Justices OF the supreme
Court of Errors in that Commonwealth. He
had been q soldier before he became q lawyer.
and was not admitted to the bar until after the
end OF the war, when he had attained the rank
of Colonel. In this respect his career resem-
bles that of Judge Edgar NJ. Cullen of Brooklyn,
Tho was a Colonel in command of n brigade in
the Union Army long before he became a coun-
scllor at law. Col. Fem lost his right arm at
the battle of Cedar Creek. but returned to &C
tive service within seven weeks from the date
of that engagement. His first judicial service
was in the Office OF Probate Judge. which he held
! for seven years. In 1887 he was appointed q
Judge Of the Superior Court of Connecticut
and in 1898 he was promoted to the tribunal
Of last resort in that State, which Is known as
the Supreme Court Of Errors. There are five
members Of this court. Like his associate on
the same banch. Judge Simeon Z. Baldwin,
Judge Fem was for many years a lecturer at
the Yale Law School.
Under the law OF this State a Judge who re-
fuses to grant a writ Of habeas corpus when
properly pctitioucd therefor. is liable to for
felt to the prisoner the sum Of 81 900. Unless
1t appears from the petition itself or the docu-
ments annexed thereto that the petitioner Is
prohibited by law from prosecuting the writ"
In North Carolina there is a similar statute.
which provides that II any Judge authorized
to grant writs of habeas corpus shall refuse to
grant such writ when legally applied for. he
shall forfeit g. $500 to the party aggrieved by
the refusal Like provisions. with differences
as TO the amount OF the penalty will be found
In the statutes of many other States, but 1t ID
very rarely indeed that their operation is In
voked. A suit under the North Carolina law.
however, has recently been commenced
against tho Hon. Lconidas l. Greene. one Of
tho Judges OF the Superior Court Of that State,
who refused to grant n writ of habeas corpus
which the plaintiff subsequently obtained from
Mr.. Juftice Furches Of the Supreme Court
Laymen who sometimes ~criticise courts fol
granting writs OF habeas corpus 30 freely are
generally unaware that a Judge is liable to q
heavy penalty for refusing the writ, II the pc
tition is in the form prescribed BY law.
1t would prob ably be difficult to define with
accuracy the extent OF the power of u court in re
spect to scandalous matter contained In the brief
OF counsel. On Wednesday. at st. Paul, MINI.
vigorous action was taken by tho United State
Court Of Appeals with reference to a brief alet
In o mining litigation now pending before tina
tribunal, by q Denver attorney named T. A
Green. The presiding Judge was Mr.. Justice
A. C,& - a. IN-tt,
States. At the opening Of the court, referring
to the argument on the previous day. in whlcl
Mr.. Green had bitterly denounced Distric
Judge Hallet Of Colorado, Judge Brewer said
THE brief Of T. A. Green contains page afte
page of denunciation and abuse of the Judges
That such matter Is irrelevant and scandalou
is evident. No such outrage on common de
cency can be tolerated. Tho name of 7. A
Green will be stricken from the record as solic
itor and counsel of Thomas ID. Kelley. and h
will no longer be heard in this case" In othe
words. the lawyer was practically disbarred
DO far as the particular case was concerned. Ii
order not to punish the htigant as well. how
ever. the court gave Mr.. Kelley thirty days
time within which to substitute q now brief.
In the London Times Of the 4th inst. ar
printed at length the opinions Of the Judges Il
the celebrated trades union case Of Allen VI
Flood. The defendant was a delegate of tn
Boilermakers' Union. The plaintiffs were ship
wrights. employed by the GienGall Iron Com
pany and doing woodwork only for that cor
~poration. Previously, however. thoy had don
some work on iron ships for II Arm known a
Mills 4 knight. because OF this conduc
on their part, the defendant representing tn
Boilermakers' Union insisted that these ship
wrights should be DISCHARGED by the Glengal
Iron Company. and threatened 10 call all tn
boilermakers out ON strike unless the dcman
was complied with. Accordingly the men wer
dismissed, and the question which arose 1
tho suit which they brought against tho del,
gate was whether the facts as thus stated CAV
them any legal cause OF action for damage
against him. The House Of Lords called 1
eight Judges of the High Court OF Justice to al
wise them upon this question. Six of the Judge
were OF the opinion that the conduct OF the del,
gate In intimidating their employers to dismis
the shipwrights WAS unlawful, but two OF thel
thought that there was nothing illegal In WIFI
he actually did. Mr.. Justice hawkins wrot
the prevailing opinion. and Mr.. Justice Mathe'
that Of the minority.