The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1911-11-16
CHARGE PARTISAN COURTS.

There seems to be kind of
mania among the democratic ed
itors to charge all court decision
not fully in accord with thei
views and desires as partisan
and "agin public interests.
Even Mr.. Bryan, who, is tn,
head and front of the democrati,
party today, and is a most honor
able and worthy citizen, seems t,
be unable to arise above tn
poisonous effects of this party mi
asma, but INDUCES in lengthy ii
rades against the national su
preme court in almost every is
sue Of his paper.
The Standpoint News which too
a turn against the state suprem
court over the recent school ia,
decision, in which it charges tn
whole thing up to politics, wa
severely called to task by the Re
view and shown to be clearly il
error in its claims. The New
said in part:
ut can hardly be said
that the decision of the SUI
preme court of the state of
Idaho in the school tax cases
adds lustre to the dignity of
that body or inspires conf
dence in it's ability TO rise
above narrow partisanship.
The dissenting opinion is well
worth study for its grasp Of
the principles of government,
and we wish that we might
say as much for the majority
opinion also, which is the law
until reversed. We wish also
that we might say that we
are proud of the fact that
the supreme tribunal of our
state was free from partisan
bias, and unaffected by po-
litical issues of momentary
significance, but the court
has in making its decision,
virtually projected the bench
into political controversy
needlessly and for what seems
rather petty ends. We wish
some one would arise and ex-
plain wherein a court swayed
by popular feeling is any
worse than court swayed by
partisan feeling"
There were two cases that were
brought up, both involving the
same state Of facts, one being
from Kootenai county and the
other from Ada county. The
decision in one case would, OF
course, control the other, as in
both cases the same questions
were involved.
The case in KoOtenai county
came up for hearing before Judg,
Flynn, one of our judges of the
district court of the Eighth judic.
ial district, and an appointee of
Governor Hawley. 1t is a well
known fact in Bonner county that
Judge Flynn is the right hand
man of the governor and the lead
er of the democratic party in this
county. When the identical ques
ton came up before Judge Flynn
for decision, he held that the pro-
vision of the law was mandatory
and not directory. This holding
was identical with the opinion of
the majority of the supreme court
in this state, and against the con.
tention of the governor.
The case which was passed upo
by our supreme court was first
tried before Judge Davis, who is
district judge of Ada county and
a democrat, he also holding the
law to be mandatory and not di.
rectory. 1t will thus be noted
that both district judges before
whom the matter was submitted
in the first instance, and botl
democrats, held that the law was
mandatory and not directory, ane
it is further important to note
that of the five judges who had
considered this matter four OF
them held to the same view, and
only one of them supported the
governor. The majority of the
supreme cnnrf held that the rea.