New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-10-27
THE HATTERS' CASE
on Mr.. Hughes for Courts
Decision Are Disingenuous.
, Editor NJ The Tribune.

Or. All attempt nus DcSA .+."NN -
attack Mr. Hughes in connection with
the "Danbury Hatters" case. 1t is not
worth wasting words to elaborate the
proposition that the country at large
will always resent any attempt to pun
ish a judge for having decided an in
dividual case in accordance with his
sworn duty to administer the law as he
finds il laid down for him. The opposite
proposition would repel in its mere
statement every voter who sought the
good of the country at large and every
intelligent voter who sought his own
good. Who among US would desire
to teach our judges to be venal
Though in some particular case one
might Individually benefit by the result
all others would be injured, and in re-
gard to all other cases the same would
be true. An enlightened selfishness if
nothing else would keep our reasoning
straight in relation to our preference
for an upright or for a dishonest lu-
dietary.
An honest judge renders his opinion,
or, if it be an appeal on which he is
associated with other judges, gives his
voice, in accordance with the case
which is presented, and in appellate
cases under the special limitations
which the law places upon him as an
appellate judge. Laymen often do not
understand just what that last phrase
means. 1t means that the judges
Of an Appellate Court do not have
the whole matter before them, but
are limited by law to reviewing the
alleged errors committed on the trial.
II the taking Of certain steps during
the trial is neglected by one side or
| the other the door is closed as to the
matters which might have been re-
viewed on appeal had those steps been
taken. By no possibility can an APP
+ pellate Court take cognizance of that
which is not before it. That was the
situation in the "Danbury Hatters" case
when it came before the Supreme Court
/ do not say the result would have been
different. Neither | nor any one can
say what the result would have been
had a different ease" been presented to
the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Marshall in a signed interview
on the subject few days ago pointed
out that the court was largely limited
~ NH hp
it by the fact that the cause went up
in the first instance on demurrer,
but he overlooks a further fact which
placed extreme limitations upon the
court in dealing with the case itself
when it ultimately came before IL 1t
appears from an examination OF the
record that no motion TO dismiss was
made on behalf of the 10 individual
defendants at the close of the plain
tiff's case on the trial, nor was any
motion made on their behalf 10 dismiss
at the close of the entire case, nor
was any request made at the close OF
the case that the court should direct
q verdict in favor Of the individual de-
PENDANTS. Doubtless the counsel for
these defendants had their own reasons
with which am not familiar for adopt
ing the course they did. | am in no
wise undertaking to criticise their con
duct Of the cause; am but stating the
fact. The result of the absence both of
any motion to dismiss and of any re-
quest for the direction OF verdict as
to these defendants was 10 limit the
ha a
before it for argument 10 a considera-
ton Of certain narrow and technical
questions and to their consideration
alone.
That Is to say: the Supreme Court
was at liberty only to consider (a)
Whether evidence which was both pre-
judicial to those defendants, and at the
same time incompetent, had been both
admitted on the trial, and its admis-
sion had been excepted to, and OBJ
Whether the judge presiding at the
trial had embodied in his charge to the
jury matter prejudicial TO those de-
PENDANTS which had been excepted to
on their behalf In other words: the
questions actually before the Supreme
Court, and the only questions before
it, were distinctly of a narrow and
technical character. II would have been
a violation Of it's duty had the court
considered anything but such matters
as were lawfully before it. Under these
circumstances it is palpable that the
attempted attack on Mr.. Hughes in this
matter is disngenuous.
CHARLES STEWART DAWSON.
New York, Oct 20, 1916.