The comet. (Johnson City, Tenn.) 1884-1916, 1910-06-30
Erroneous Statement.

Erroneous Statement.
/ will now quote a portion of the
first statement made by the three
judges on April &c:
st is true that, pending the sessions
of the committee the Governor did
submit to member of the court
proposition containing a modification
of the original plan for holding con-
vention, but such modification con-
tanned the same menace, as it provid-
ed for delaying further action by
counties until a time beyond that in
which the Cooper case, in the usual
order of events, would be decided.
1--WE construed the action of the
committee, brought about under these
conditions, and it unquestionably was,
as part of an effort by Governor Pat
terson to invade and interfere with
our solemn duties as judges of the
Supreme Court, to overawe that tribu-
nal, and improperly influence it's de-
cision in case then pending before
it.
1--WE, therefore, felt it our duty for
the maintenance of the dignity and in
tegrity of the court, and our own self
respect and independence as judges,
to refuse to decide the case under
such circumstances, and, although we
were without opposition, and our nom-
nation seemed certain, to announce
that we would not enter the primary
ordered"
What does this mean? According
to their own statement, the primary
Nil xfro1 DO
judicial convention, which was offered,
though the State Committee would
have nothing to do with it, was also a
menace, and because of this three
judges of the highest tribunal deliber-
ately tell the people of Tennessee that
they refused to decide the Cooper
case.
Suppose they had good reason to OBJ
ject to the primary plan, suppose the
separate convention itself was OBJ
jectionable, how could this or any
thing else except the law and evi.
dence, their oath of office, their duty
to the State and defendants affect
either the time or the decision itself?
Were the rights of the State of less
Importance than their own claims to
office? Were the rights of the defend
ants to be subordinated and made to
defend upon political events? And
finally, was the independence and in
tegrity of the court to be asserted by
deserving the Democratic party rather
than by such judicial action as would
become the highest court of the peo-
pie?
want every man in Tennessee
nxyn nj
for all have a common interest in
her welfare-to know that have OBJ
served the proprieties of my own Of
flee and never made a single state
ment of any sort which referred in any
way to these judges until they made,
signed and gave to the public this ex-
traordinary manifestation of ill-hu-
NOR which reflected upon the execu-
tive as coordinate branch OF the
government no less than their own fit
ness to hold exalted judicial positions.
The primary plan was ordered
March 81. The Cooper case was de-
cided April 10, and this statement of
the judges was given to the public on
April 26.
The case was held by the court for
seventy-three days before decision,
and twentySeven days elapsed after
the primary plan was ordered before
the three judges made their COM
plant of coercion. That it was an
must me apparent to
all; that it was necessarily untrue as
a fact cannot be denied; that judges
should use case pending before them
for political purposes, and refuse to
decide it for any reason, save Judi
cial one, would be inconceivable un-
less they had themselves made the adj
If down into the souls of these rec
reant judges the people could look,
they would find not an exalted pur-
pose to preserve their dignity, but a
firm determination to perpetuate
themselves in Office at whatever cost
20 the party or the State.
Why should they refuse to submit
heir claims to the people in Dem
)cratic primary?
Although they would not decide the
Cooper case on account of the alleged
menace to the court, yet when that