The Duluth rip-saw. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1917-19??, 1917-04-21
sAMUELsON sHIRKED.

It has been no secret that Com
missioners Magney and Phillips
desired change in city attorney,
both because Mr.. Samuelson has
not satisfied great majority Of
the people and because some
other changes in that department
were considered beneficial to the
best interests Of the city.
In support Of Mr.. Samuelson,
Commissioner Silberstein pointed
out the alleged fact that the pres
ent city attorney won the Zien
case, whereby the prohibition
majority Of last June was upheld.
If either MIR. Silberstein or Mr..
Samuelson claim any credit for
the latter, they come very close to
getting credit under false pre-
lenses. ~>.~~ E..
It is true that Assistants Nc
Donnell and McHugh were as
signed the duty of writing a brief
when Howard T. Abbott appealed
to the supreme court over Judge
Dancers decision against Isador
Zien and in favor of the city. But
Mr.. Samuelson gave no personal
attention to the matter and kept
well out of the way while the
brief was being prepared. Neither
his heart, hands nor brain were
put into the matter.
The young assistants did their
best but, having no help from the
older head Of the city attorney,
the friends Of the dry cause urged
G. R. Magney and Elmer F. Blu
to get permission from the SUI
preme court to prepare and file a
brief as ''amici curiae'' Friends
of the Court, in common words.
They worked hard and we'll for
week or more, at their own ex-
pense of time and with financial
help from others as to legal ex-
penses.
Undoubtedly the brief of
Messrs. Magney and Blu did
much to win the case. Any and
all credit is due Assistant Attor-
news Mcdonnell, McHugh, and
friends of the court" Magney
and Blu. Mr.. Samuelson is enti-
tied onl yto the credit Of taking
no interest and sighting an Of
fetal job up to him for the people.
Mr.. Abbott was much annoyed
by the brief of Messrs. Magney
and Blu. In his carefully pre-
pared argument in favor Of Isa-
dor Zien and John Barleycorn,
the little giant" said in conclu-
sion, viz:
We have just been advised that a
brief is to be filed in this court by out
side parties who are ostensibly act
ing in the premises as friend of the
trial court. We have received no copy
of said brief, and we are advised that
neither the city of Duluth nor their
counsel have received any copy Of
such brief, or have given their con-
sent or permission thereto or there
for. It seems to us that this is most
unusual circumstance. The trial court
needs no friend to appear for him in
this case. The trial court is not
party to the litigation; the circum-
stances out of which this litigation
arises did not occur in the presence
of the court. The court heard this
argument and decided it on the merits
mind, no doubt, always that it is the
duty Of the trial court to sustain a
law or ordinance wherever possible,
leaving it to this court to declare same
unconstitutional or invalid. Had the
liquor and realty interests of the state
filed brief such as these outside par
ties now are doing, we apprehend
there would be a great hue and cry in
reference to the matter. We appre-
bend also that they would have as
much right or more so to file such a
brief, because of the fact that their
existence and property rights are vi
tally involved, whereas the sentiment
talists Of this community, who are in
fact appearing by counsel in this liti-
cation in filing their brief, have moth
ing at stake except to establish them
selves as the Don Quixotes of ethical
questions, who charge not by lance
and spear, but with hands clasped
across their breasts, and with up
turned faces, choose to act as self-con-
stftuted friends of the court.
Not having seen the brief of these
parties, represented by able counsel,
We shall, of course, ignore same. If
this court chooses to make use Of
same, we dare say they will find moth
ing whatever therein inconsistent
with the position taken by the relator
In the action.
When Mr.. Abbott appeared be-
fore the supreme court, that body
informed him, with smiles, that
the brief had been fled by Messrs.
Magney and Blue as amici curiae
by consent Of the court, previous
ly granted.
That information made the Cit,
tie giant feel like going away
back and sitting down. How he
felt after the supreme court up
held Judge Dancers decision, the