The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-07-02

can correctly judge whether 1t exists, oniy by fatfofning facts and conditions which we can see. by our knowledge of h,,man nature and the direction In which the interest and motives and habits of men impel them under like conditions.
 Hard to Determine.
 When conditions are given, when the in- terest and modes of thought of men are known. then the existence of the infiu- cree or. prejudice Is a question which must be determined by reasoning from cause to effect. Hence, the inutiiity of attempting to determine such question by clouds of affidavits.' as some of the courts phrase it. on the part of honest and conscientious citizens, as to whether or not under given state of facts hu- man conduct will orr will not. be exhib- tied In the direction in which the inter- est, habits and modes of thought of a people ordinarily teach us that # will be exerted. That Is a4questsn for the con science and judgment of the court whether its finding upon the matter be it consonance with or in opposition to the views of majority of the cofnnluni ty. To go by the majority of such opin- ions. is practically to hinge the tudg- Gent of the court upon the vote Of the community in which the local influence prevails. IJi IS Il BinBufdf dItu hVktSEGoic fact, that the best and worthiest of men are often utterly unconscious of any bias or prejudice which moves them. and are as honest and conscientious in deny ing it's existence as men can be.
 So subtle and undefined is the influence of local ties, interests, opinion and customs that 1t is almost impossible for msn within the sphere of such influence to escape altogether its power. l have felt this as a man, however, much have struggled as Judge to Ignore and subor- dinate the feeling. have lived in this County, the place where the court sits, nearly all my life. The community whose interests are involved in this suit has been kind to me and mine in many ways. All my ties, associations and friendships are here. cannot conceal from myself the feeling that I would not have as much reluctance to entering upon the delicate inquiries which this case pres ehts if I were sitting in similar case, in another court of the United States. in a faroff State to whose people and ofti- cers I was an entire stranger. After earnest reflection. under a full sense of the responsibility of my oath as a judi cial officer. I cannot escape the convic- ton that the facts to which I have all luded create local influence which necessarily operates to the prejudice or the defendant. sand that the court ought not to remand this case, upon any afi'- davits which do not assail the truth of the prominent facts to which l have ad- yerted: but only give the opinion of the affiants that such facts have not put the defendant under such conditions as to the trial, as bring the case within the scope and meaning of the acts Of Con- gress.
 At the conclusion of the delivery of the oninion the court took a recess until O clock to give the lawyers time to con fer.
 When the court reconvened at o'clock Judge J. B. Gaston, Pronale Judge of Montgomery County, was call ed to testify. His testimony was in sub stance that he had been Probate Judge of Montgomery County several years; that he knew many persons in the coun- ty and had talked with them. He said he did not believe there was any prejudice or local influence against tho defendants. although he said he believed the bulk of the people thought the Fidelity and Deposit Company ought to pay the amount involved: that as bond com pany it was rather popular.
 In answer to a question by Judge Jones, Judge Gaston said he did not think the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland was popular as a litigant nor did he think there was any prejudice against the defendant owing to its con nection in this matter with the failure of the banking house of Josiah Morris & Go, whereby the funds of the county were largely lost. Judge Gaston further testified that he had not read the report of the grand jury of Montgomery County suggesting the propriety of the company going on county bonds.
 It was admitted by lawers representing both sides of the controversy that the Sheriff, the Tax Collector, the Tax As sessor. the Deputy Tax Collector. the Circuit Clerk of Montgomery County and the Clerk of the Montgomery City Court would testify to substantially the same facts as Judge Gaston.
 MT. Whelan an officer of the Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland, who made the affidavit for the removal of the case from the Montgomery City Court was then examined by the plaintiffs lawyers. Mir. Whelan said he got his information concerning local influence and local prejudice from persons with whom he had talked.
 At the conclusion of the examination of MT. Whelan Captain J. G. Finley. Coun- ty Attorney, made an argument that the case could not be removed to the Federal Court because MT. Cochran is a citizen of the same State as the county of Mont gomery. The county attorney cited several authorities to- sustain his conten- tion. but Judge Jones referred to authori- ties to the contrary upon which he had based his opinion handed down at the morning session.
 The plaintiff having offered all the evid- ence Judge Jones ruled that the motion to remand the case to the Montgomery City Court must be denied for the reasons stated in his opinion. He said that after all 1t was merely. the opinion of good men as to the effect of the facts stated in the petition. which were not denied, would have in creating local influence within the meaning of the constitution and laws of the United States. s
 The court at $ o'clock adjourned until 9 o'clock this morning when demurrers will be taken up.
 @@S-==S@=@=%S @=%SzSSs=SSS$SSSSS>SSS@4