The Sunday globe., 1901-06-02
The Evil Resultant From Life
Tenure on the Bench.
BRADLEY AND THE LAW
A Sample Case Demonstrating His AutOcratic
Powers and The Singular Fact That He is
Above The Law Like a King and KalSer-HiS
Own Sweet VIII Superior 10 Acts Of Con-
greSs-Not AmsnabIe 10 Public Opinion,

ny lne FTeSluenJ OF Jne united SJdJeS
and they hold their office for life, prac-
tically. Their salaries are ample and
paid by the Government, no matter
whether they work or play. They may
60 away on a trip at any time and be
absent a month. This makes no diff
ference with the salary. They may
come upon the bench at any time Of
day, and may leave at any time. They
often come on at 10 a. M, and leave at
II m. or p. m. They suit themselves;
the salary is never docked.
AS to their rulings and decisions,
they are as absolute as the Sultan of
Turkey or the Shah of Persia, except
in the cases of wealthy suitors, who
are able to take an appeal to a higher
tribunal In the cases of poor suitors
their decisions are fnal for it costs
from one to two hundred dollars to
get up into the Court Of Appeals.
On the S1st Of January, 1901, a wife
filed a bill for divorce on the charge of
cruelty-No. 22033, Equity Doc. 80.
The papers now on file show that she
was permitted, on account of her pow
erty, to file this bill and carry on her
suit without the payment Of costs, the
permission having been granted by the
kindness Of Justice Barnard, after a
careful examination Of the merits Of
the case as far as they appeared on
the face Of the bill. Such a permit is
a humane provision Of the courts, in
as the rich may be protected against
order that the deserving poor as we'll
oppression and abuse.
The bill shows that there are four
children in the family of the parties to
the suit-one girl of seven years and
three boys, the oldest being about IA.
There is filed with the bill con-
tract or memorandum Of agreement, .
dated November 13. 1899. signed by
both parties, by the terms of which
they were to live separate, the wife
taking with her a share of the house
hold goods and the four children; the
husband to pay 81 a week for their
maintenance. The bill filed shows that
he made the payments as agreed down
to July, 1900 when he refused to pay
more than SO a week. and that in the
| following September he ceased to pay
at all.
An answer to this bill is filed and is.
sue Joined. The court, Judge A. c.
Bradley, appointed an examiner to
take the testimony I'm the case, as is
usual. The defendant insisted on hav.
ing the testimony taken in shorthand,
and six witnesses were examined on
behalf of complainant, the bill for
which was $3.50 the court allowing
| % cents a 100 words.
! According to all precedent, the court
orders the defendant TO pay for the
| testimony, when the defendant is the
man, on the ground that he is the one
who has in his hands the MANAGEMENT
of the family affairs, and controls the
income. In this case, Il was shown In
| evidence that the husband was caring
for one Of the children, which he held
from the wife contrary to the agree
ment above mentioned and the wife
was caring for the other three. All
the children were attending the public
schools, except the eldest boy. who
went to work only after the father had
refused to contribute further toward
their support. The mother. with char
acteristic energy, had obtained a place
to work, which paid her 500 a month
but she was obliged then to keep a ser
want so that she did not get ahead
much by this tack. The husband was
shown to be in receipt Of about $50 a
month; yet the Judge denied" a mo
tion for an order on the defendant Ia
compel him to contribute something Ia
assist the wife in maintaining the
thre children, or TO pay for her testi
/ mony.
Next the defendant came into court
/ by his attorney. and moved bis testi
mony might be taken in open court
which was granted This enabled him
to put in his testimony without eY
! pense, to which the complainant made
no objection, supposlng that her testi
monY might be taken in the same way
| In this however, she was mistaken
| The Judge, having before him the af
| fidavit OF the complainant's utter in.
! ability to pay the usual fee of $40 Ia
bring her case into court i'm the be.
! ginning, insists now that she shall nav
$3.50 for the testimony taken in her
| behalf, showing the cruelty charged
| hv the bill. or go to trial without anv
testimony in her behalf, except such
as Is strictly in rebuttal Of defend
ants testimony As no divorce case
can be allowed without proof. the
Judges rulings are equivalent To a de-
nial of Justice.
Judge Bradley is one of Cleveland's
appointees-a Presbyterian, appointed
II was currently reported at the time
| through the influence Of DR.. Bartlett
| pastor Of the Presbyterian church
where Cleveland was supposed To at
! tend. Tf the complainant in this case
is getting Presbyterian Justice, may
the gods deliver us from any more oil
it. And yet there Is not a newspaper
in the District OF Columbia outside OF
| The Sunday Globe that could he in
duced to publish a line OF any injustice
committed by any Judge Of the Su
preme Court here.
Judge Bradley is an autocrat--a 1T
tie god-and holds his place for life
and owes no thanks therefor to the peo
Dle Of the District, whose lives and
fortunes are in his hands: and II Is
not likely that public opinion will bC
able to penetrate his tough hide, OF
change his natural disposition TO play
the despot.
Judge Bradley is not only despotic
but impolite. A man who says "he
tween YOU and I" should he vet in the
seventh grade Of the public schools.
Might not these Judges he more cour
teous to those over whom they pre-
side, II they were elected bv the peo
nle-not FOR life, but FOR n short term
We are informed. however that there
Is AZ nresent hardly more than one
Tudoe Rradlev at present on the bench
that most of them are gentlemen oi
ability and refinement, We mighl
mention Chief Justice bingham. for
one. and Associate Justice Barnard
one of McKinlev's aunointees. for an
other. who have scarcely an enemy
among those who practice In this