The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1916-11-06

Harris got judgment OF fourteen hundred dollars
something like that. against the railway company The
case appealed in the usual manner
bricfcd by the respective attorneys argued by the
specve attorneys. and into consultation
room 10 discuss il. We discussed it always did
important When to the vote three OF the
judges believed that il ought be decided in favor OF
the railway company and they voted to decide
The other four of us Of whom one voted decide
II against the railway company. wrote the opinion.
That came TO just by chance The method there
to right around the table in regular order and when
it my anybody elses turn. the
was assigned TO him regardless OF anything else except
only, provided that he with the majority and by
chance it happened to to write the opinion.
wrote the opinion after giving II careful consideration,
important like that would require, and decided
against the corporation"
But should confuse this. the original opinion,
with the opinion IN controversy, which opinion
written upon motion for rehearing.
Judge Roo, has pettifoggcd when. in his advertise
ments he refers the fact that this opinion decided
against the railway company and that he wrote it Let
Us what he says about the opinion the rehearng
Here it is:
Judge Gordon in day when he was over
TO Olympia. he frequently did shortly after this opinion
(on rehearing) was written, and he said: That is
rotten opinion which you wrote replied in kind
OF answer ohaiiingly and then he started in talk
about and discussed il. saying that absolutely
inconsistent with federal court decisions and that we
must reverse it. Now that discussion without the
other attorney being present which myself told the
mee OF. and do believe that they knew until
IL.
unetheal-a mistake When the opinion rehearing
filed decided tho against tho company making
slight modification in the language. which believe
essential to make il right in line with the rule laid down
by tho federal court Now there the only reguarity
my part
The investigating committee OF the State Bar Asso-
citation in its report upon this matter, found that Judge
Root dictated draft OF proposed opinion Of the Supreme
Court upon this petition for rehearing that Judge Root
did not submit this draft OF opinion to any OF the other
Judges OF t court but sent copy OF the by mail
Gordon Spokane shortly prior the l4th day OF
May 1908; that Gordon that day wrote and mailed
Spokane letter to Judge Root vigorously complaining
about the opinion which he supposed had been filed the
opinion OF the that May 49, 1903, Judge Root
replied to this letter OF Godons informing the latter that
the supposed opinion had not been filed and expressing
desire the part Of Root to Gordon that
thereafter Gordon Olympia and met Judge Root.
and that they discussed the Judge Root admit
ted the address the Seattle Bar Association referred
above and Gordon says that Judge Root suggested
that he Gordon reflect his views OF the that
upon returning his office in Spokane Gordon dictated
to his clerk and assistant Mr. Joseph LAWN opinion
in the upon the petition for rehearng; that Gordon
enclosed the same in letter to Mr.. w. r. Begg OF st
Paul. the general solicitor Of the Great Northern Railway
Company, and Judge Gordons chief that time; that
Mr. Begg the request of Gordon tcegraphed
to tho latter that the draft OF the opinion prepared by
Gordon satisfactory to the railway company and re-
turned the TO him in Spokane in letter dated une
s. 1908; that very thereafter Gordon delivered to
Judge Root the above mentioned draft OF opinion pre-
pared by Gordon himself and that this subsequently
filed verbatim as the opinion OF the court
These findings all supported by the correspond
between Root and Gordon. Gordon and Begg and
Begg and Gordon and all of the letters touching upon
this a part of the official record
In letter written by Judge Gordon to Mr. w. R.
Begg his superior in which the draft of Gordon opinion
was enclosed, the latter said:
Referred mentioned in printed opinion en-
closed herewith. We have paid this judgment There
imperative for doing Not have
the result. To have done so enables us
to make the law easier for the future Fur
Their explanation will give you in person. ! have pre-
pared and herewith hand you memo of opinion which
the law and will be of value
to in the future OF like import. If
satisfied with this memorandum, kindly wire the single
word Satisfactory IT there any additional change
wish made, let me have II at beg to
that although this is typewren that il is my handiwok,
and would thank you to return it, together with encos
urc, under personal to me-"