The independent., 1903-10-15

Feeling that some prominent MEM
her of the legal profession in Nebras-
ka, thoroughly acquainted with the
work of the Nebraska supreme court,
could, on short notice, give better
synopsis of the more important work
performed by Chief Justice Sullivan
than the editors could after weeks OF
reading the reports, The Independent
called upon Former Attorney General
C ]. Smyth, of Omaha, and asked him
for brief statement OF the prominent
features of such cases as he believed to
be of more than ordinary public con-
Germ.
Although very busy man-for the
law firm of Smyth & Smith, at one
time attorney general and deputy at
torney general of Nebraska, is-counted
one of the big firms Of Omaha-Mr.
Smyth found time to dictate to his
stenographer the statement below. The
Independent had decided correctly
Mr.. Smyth's thorough knowledge OF
what is contained in the Nebraska re-
ports enabled him to give in a half
hours dictation succinct, clear state
ment which the editors could not have
eQua1ed in two weeks digging among
the records-if at ALL And this is
what the stenographer transcribed
from Mr.. Smyth's dictation:
In the case of State VS.. Meserve So
Neb. 451-2 it was contended by the
treasurer of one of the counties that
he should not be required to pay the
express charges upon money conveyed
by him to- the state, but that it should
be paid by the state.
Judge Sullivan who wrote the opin-
Ion said that the law required the
county treasurer to pay the eXpressage
and in answer to the argument that
the law was oppressive in that regard
and required more OF the county treas
urer than should be required, he made
this characteristic reply:
"a person accepting a public Of
flee takes it with its burdens and
whenever those become insufferably
oppressive he may resort to that eX-
cellent and adequate remedy which
a wise legislative foresight has pro-
.vided, viz: a letter of resignation
addressed to the proper authority.
Blaco VS.. State, So Neb. 557, 561,
was what is popularity known as the
State Oil Inspectors case. Hilton, the
inspector, had embezzled something
like $4,000 of the states money. The
state sued him and his bondsmen. One
of the contentious made was that the
law under which Hilton had been ap-
pointed and had acted was unconsti-
tutional Judgo Sullivan answered
this contention by saying:
Whether it Is void or valid is al
together immaterial. Under its au-
thority Hilton accepted commits
sion from the governor and for near
ly two years performed the duties
which theS1aw imposed and received
and enjoyed the emoluments for
which it provided. For the express
purpose of securing to Hilton au-
thority from the state to perform
ST those duties and to receive those
emoluments tn plaintiffs in error
executed to the state the bond in
suit. In that bond they affirmed
that Hilton ha been duly appointed
and they therein undertook to an
swer for any failure on his part to
perform the duties imposed upon
him by the act i. Having by their
NUtuutdTy dCLS Sctuitu W IliitoH tHe
fruits of the law which was in
structively corporated in the bond
they are now by plain principle OF
justice forbidden to deny that the
law was constitutionally enacted.
Hilton and his bondsmen were held
and the amount of the judgment
against them was collected by the
state.
In Cornell VS.. Irvine. sc Neb 657
the supreme court said that Irvine
could hold two Offices at the same time
under the state and receive two salar-
les. 1t will be remembered that he
was one of the supreme court COM
missoners; that this commission was
created because of the overcrowded
condition of the supreme court docket
1. would seem, therefore, that he ought
to have given all his time to the work
OF the commission, but no. he divided
Il and gave part to the work of lee
turing before the law school of the
university. He. however, drew the en-
tire salary of commissioner as we'll as
the salary attached to his lectures.