Martinsburg herald. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1881-1920, 1901-05-04
JUDGE DENTS OPINION.
Dissenss from the Opinion Of the Court
In Tsarttgan Proceedings

Judge I'M. Dent a member of the
West Virginia supreme court Of an
peals, has forwarded to Morgantown
his dissenting opinion in the uTnhibi-
ton proceedings of Professor j. w.
Hartigan against the board of regents
Of the University. and accompanied it
with an open letter for public alton.
The opinion and letter both border
on the ultra sensational, on account
of the vigorous criticism he makes of
this COLLEAGUES who concurred IN the
majority opinion. Judge Dent pre-
faces his opinoin with the following
statement
For reasons known only to them
selves. my associates denied me
kowledge or inspection of their opin-
ion and syllabus until the affidavit
was handed down or became public
property. This is matter of judi
cial courtesy or ethics, and as a learned
Judge has said that courtesy is mere
matter of taste, about which there is
no disputing and from which there is
no appeal since dueling has been
abolished, every judge has the right
to treat the conferes as he sees proper
according to his inward Consciousness
and outward experience. Not having
been omitted TO their exclusive
consultation over it. nor been made
aware of the written conclusions UNI
til after given to the public, | deem
it my duty to review these conclu-
sions, as some OF them appear TO me
to plainly violate the true principals
of law and justice, and the opinion as
a whole to be evasiye, in conclusive
and unsatisfactory as an exposition
of sound law.
Judge Dent then attacks the opinion
Of the court almost in TO and pays his
respects to his colleagues in strong
language. In attacking the interpre-
tation placed by the court upon the
words good cause in the statute,
which says that professor may be
removed for good cause, Judge Dent
says:
Such construction as this is I'M
reasonable and unjust and is an
abomination in the sight of the people
that cannot be too severely condemn
ed . In speaking of the conclusion
reached on the question where any
professor may have a vested right in
his position he stays: it is hardly
could arrive at such a conclusion in a
government where law and not indi-
-yldual will is ALWAYS recognized as
paramount and supreme. Again
in denying the charge that he is pre-
JUDGED in the case because one of the
professors removed his son-in-law, he
says the best evidence of prejudice or
undue interest is the evasion or deDar-
ture from the fundamental principals
of law and justice as settled by the
decisions of the courts and reserved
by the text writer's. In CONCLUSION
he says:
From the chaff that has accumu-
lated from the careless work of III
competent and artisan judges | have
sought to secure the true grains OF
wheat. The result of my effort must
seek for itself / confess that have
deep and abiding interest in the
University and its success, and long
to see the day come when it will be
placed by law beyond the power of
those who arbitrarily seek to manip-
ulase it for private gain or ambl-
tion instead of public good. There
is not a student in attendance at that
institution today but who knows, in
spite of Judiciary sophistry. that DR..
Hartigan, though his faults may be
many, was unjustly treated land
wrongfully removed and has been
denied the equal protection of the
law ("