Mexico weekly ledger., 1903-12-24
FOLK ANp THE SUPREME COURT

4
courts about which sensible men may
take opposite views and be able to rea-
son logically and sensibly Oh either
side. 1t is not like mathematics In
which, from a given set OF facts, only
one conclusion may be reached.
When conclusions are reached by the
Supreme Court they are the end OF
the law. Right or wrong they fix and
determine the rights Of the parties
and become a rule Of action thereaf-
ter until acting in due course of the
rules OF society they are changed.
In stable governments there is only
one way to get rid Of an Objectionable
decision and that is by appeal TO the
regularly constituted methods estab-
lished for that purpose. In South
America such decisions are refused
obedience and revolution and anarchy
follow. The statutes of this State
make it a felony to offer money to any
public officer with intent to influence
his vote on any question which may be
BY law brought before him. This Of
Tense in law is attempted bribery and
what Butler was convicted of in
Judge Hockaday's court by a jury in
Columbia He had offered Or. Chap
man, a member oftbe Board OF Health
of st. Louis, $500 for his vote in
awarding the contract to dispose OF
the garbage Of that city. The Con-
tract was awarded 70 the concern
Butler represented on the Soth OF Sep
TENDER, 1901, and 1t has been per-
forming that work and drawing a
large sum Of money annually for IL
since. Butler, in defense, claimed that
the city ordinance comforting power
on the Board of Health to award
that contract was invalid; that the
contract should have been awarded by
the Board Of Public Improvements
and not by the Board Of Health; that
although the contract was awarded
by the Board Of Health, yet il was not
attempted bribery in him 10 offer the
money 10 a member Of that board he
cause that member really had no
right 10 vote ON the question. Judge
IIuckaday ruled against him in this
contention, but the Supreme Court
sustained him. According 10 Hocka-
days ruling he vas guilty Of attempt
ed bribery; according to the Supreme
Court be was guilty Of nothing BY
this decision the ordinance under
which the Board OF Health acted II
invalid. Mr.. Folk took the position a.
that the ordinance was valid, ~ that
II not valid the Board Of Health was
acting IN that regard, did award the
contract and the defendant could not
escape by saying that be was mistak'
en- In the law and bad offered the
bride to the wrong man; that the
crime OF bribery is against public
justice. That the purpose Of the Law
against bribery is to prevent ofiicia
llpm DClhe 1hAAAthNSN =
other considerations than the publil
good. In support of the claim tina
the ordinance was valid that author
fty had been exercised by the Board o
Health under the city charter 70
more than 25 years, Before Butler
offense two city eounselors had pasSe'
upon the question and advised th
city that the ordinance was valid an
the garbage contract should Oe let b
the Board Of Health and not by th
Board of Public Improvements
One Of the city eounselors, Hon
w. Q. Marshall, is now a Judge 0
division n Of the Supreme Court an
is pronounced 10 be one Of its ables
members. His division did not TT
this case. As to thep point that TIE Boar
of Health was acting in that regar
and though without jurisdiction never
the-less the ofIense was complete, MI
Folk had eminent authority in hi
support. Wharton's Criminal Las
says: "The offense is complete whel
the offer is made, although Ina matte
not within the jurisdiction OF thu
officer" Many cases were cited b.
him 10 support which, take an uOusal
~ critical mind to distinguish from
the Butler case.
Doubtless the questions decided arr
close and such as able legal minds vii
disagree aDout, and have differed
about. To undertake to belituc Mr.
Folks ability, because Of this dif
ference OF opinion, IS exceedingly
narrow 10 his critics and discusses bu.
a shaiioa understanding d the case.
The law is not an exact science mol
are The judges infallible Nothing
better illustrates this than the FIRE
quent disagreements Of the courts
Judges dissent from each other In tn.
same case. One court 0gerruies an,
other and often 0yerrules itself,
Frequently as plausible an opinion
can be written upon one side as the
other. IL takes time, thought anc
drudgery 10 get at the right conclu
sion and sometimes when the right il
reached the wrong rule previously
declared is allowed to stand. IL
change the rule would often work I
greater injury than to adhere to the
wrong one. A great many OF our citizenl
remember Enoch H0Oton, justice o.
the peace OF this township for mani
yeaB, and Judge Fagg, Of Phi county
at one time Judge Of the Suprem'
Court These men had known each
other in their youth and continued
their acquaintance while occupying
their respective positions OF the loves
and highest judicial Offices Of Tn
state. Fagg while Supreme JudgI
passed upon one Of Ho0t0ns judgment
reversing II. Afterward meeting tn
Squire be said, "WelI, H0oton, / SCI
you are stll justice Of the peace an'
] suppose deciding cases wrong
sYoa might think %, Judge" sale
Hooton ~ have often thought 0
that case you decided contrary 10 m.
Judgment and nay conclusion Of ID
whole matter Is that the only differ
ence between Us fellows 81 the bottom
and you fellows at The top is that th
Justice Of the Peace has The hrst CUES
aud the supreme Judge the last