The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-04-04


thing OF sensation, more especially
among the members OF the state bar,
has been caused by the attack on Judge
Fisk by r.. b. Griffith, of this city, In
his speech before me annaul meeting
OF the Enforcement league at James
town, Thursday. Mr. Griffith is vice
president in the absence of Frank
Lynch, of Casseltcn. In defense OF
Judge Fisk, Judge Guy G. Fl. Coriiss,
of this city, himself a former chief
justice of tho state, has the following
communication:
Statement Of corIiss.
| / was astonished vixen / read the
wanton and savage attack made by
Mr.. Griffith on The character of Judge
Fisk. The cl-1rge mads by him was
carefully written, and therefore DELHI
crate, and it embodies nothins more
nor less than charge OF judicial COR
ruption against him with respect to the
prohibition law in this statement Mr..
Griffith SAYS among other things:
Whenever he Judge fisk has had
la chance to give the prohibition law
a blow he done it."A
There is no ESCAPE from the plain
meaning of this language. 1t is an
assertion that contrary to his judicial
oath and duty he has willfully stepped
out of the path of duty whenever the
opportunity presented itself to deal the
! prohibition law a blow. Another
statement of like Lurport is found in
this carefully written document which
is as follows:
"At every opportunity, Judge Fisk
has proved himself champion for tht
liquor forces"
i For a man on the bench to cham
pion the cause of liquor is to d.tregarc
his duty and vote against his convic.
tions in favor of the liquor interests
This is corruption. This charge is ut
terly false, and for a man of Mr. Grf-
fith's standing to make 1t with nj
foundation is scandalous. In the FRS
place Mr.. Griffith Iae very carefully
garbled the record, and has concealed
from the public very important deci.
sion made by Judge Fisk in the in,
terests of the prohibition law. In thu
case of state VS.. Hanson, 16 ND. 347
supreme court which sustained tn,
state law requiring The registration
and publication of the federal govern
ment receipt issued to a parry for tn,
, payment of the internal revenue tai
! upon the occupation Of retail deale
, in distilled malt, and fermented liq
uors. This law was very justly re
} garded as an important agency IN lead
ing to the detection and conviction o
! persons violating the prohibition Law
Of the state, and Judge Fisk wrote thu
opinion sustaining the law.
Another Viewpoint.
Mr.. Griffith cannot plead ignorEnc
of the decision of Judge Fisk as 1T wa
rendered over two year ago and was
: decision that attracted much attention
, in prohibition circles. But it so hap
, lpens that this very case was taken =
y the United States supreme court Of
the ground that e federRl question wa
Involved, and the United States SUI
preme court reversed the decision rem
! Idered by Judge Fisk and held that tn
. law was unconstitutional. 1t Is there
fore in order for Mr.. Griffith to charg
2 those judges of the United States su
! Ipreme court who held this law uncon
!. stitutioral as being corruptly hostile I
the cause of temperance. In t.le Uni
: ted States supreme court, three of tn
judges dissented, and according to MI
Griffith these are the only homes
Judges in the United States suprem
court on this question, and the other
are to be held up to public infamy a
icorruptly favoring the cause of liquor
This case illustrates what is know
to every lawyer that many judicie
questions are so complex in nature an
so difficult of solution that lawyers an
Judges will honestly differ in thei
lopinion touching such questions. Her
were three supreme court Judges in
: Guiding Judge Fisk. who though
the same way; but a majorit
lof the judges in the United States su
Ipreme court thought that the law wa
unconstitutional; and in court as else
9 where, the majority controls. In tn.
L lease, there was a splendid chance fl
Judge Fisk to strike a. blow at til
cause Of prohibition by holding the la
8 Unconstitutional as it appears tEE4c tt
), law was unconstitutional and 1
q would have had p-sndid grounds II
:, writing an opinion that way il /
: is the hireIing of the liquor interest
Ii how comes it that his decision wa
g against such interests under such eli
4. cumstances? The fact that Judf
~ II lSk WEOl6 lIILS Is a HlssJIeT
Vt public knowledge and public recor
e and for gentleman with knowledf
70 of this case to make the statemei
% that whenever Judge Fisk has had
: chance to give the prohibition law
Is blow, he has done 1t, naturally wa
rants the inference that there was
q deliberate suppression of the facts
d far as they were favorable to Jud,
Fisk. Great stress is laid upon Il
y fact that Judge Fisk wrote the opinic
d of the majority of the court whit
= ~~~~-~-~-~-~N~~~-~~-~~~-~~
at we're when they went out on Nov. 8
Of TIL only resolution passed
he the meeting Tuesday night was to Il
it effect that the officers be urged
he bring the strike to an end as soon
s. possible without sacrificing the goc
bit of the union"
a When asked il a meeting at whiC
ne no officers were present was the usu
is things, Mr.. Harshbarger said:
in There was nothing unusual abo
TIA hat A.