Year: 1878




In Yesterdays issue of the DEMOCRAT, un-
der the above heading, we made some com"
ments upon an article which appeared In the
Republican newspaper OF this city, ln lts iast
Saturdays issue, and which was entitled
80 Republican congressman from the South.
The article referred to contained some fui-
some adulation and tlattery Of the Republi-
can candidate for Congress In the Fifth
District OF louisiana ohm t. Ludeling-
and certain misstatements of fact, II not
downright falsehoods, with regard to the
opinion Of The Supreme Court OF the United
States In deciding an important railroad litl-
cation to which the said Ludeling was
one of the principal parties defendant.
These misstatements were, with regard to
the preparation and real authorship OF the
DDinion of the court In the case known as
that OF Jackson ct al. VS.. Ludeling ct al, re-
ported In the twenty-first volume Of Wal
laces Reports, the Republican alleging that o
certain portion of the same, styled by the
,Repabljcu,, Indecent obiter dictn" II not the
whole opinion, was written, not by the JUS
'tice of the Supreme Court (Strong), to whom
the duty had been assigned by his brethren,





Repabltcas says induced Mr.. Justice
Strong to incorporate into his opinion said
Obiter dactG."


The language OF the Republican, in making
this statement Is as follows:


Our readers are familiar (2) with the indie
cent obtter dicia words by the way) which
one of the solemn od fossils, who who wear the tne
robes Of a Marshall or a Mclean, was
induced at the instance OF one OF the attor-
neys, himself bitterly opposed to Judge
Ludeling politically, In certain decision rem
dered In one Of the cases which came up from
Louisiana, to incorporate into his opinion.


Now, while we have no authority to speak
for Mr. Justice Strong or the distinguished
counselor against whom the Republican
makes so serious charge, we cannot, know
ing the facts 30 authoEtatively and so accu-
,rately as we do, suffer such a baseless and
reckless assertion to go uncontradicted. Hav-
ing the means of exposing the bold lie OF the
.Hepublict1n, behind which stands, no doubt,
the late Chief Justice of Louisiana (under the
Radical regime) or some uninformed and in
,judicious attendant Of his, as the inspirer OF
this effusion, we proceed to declare what we
know In the premises and the Information
may be relied upon as perfectly authentic.


From an intimate knowledge Of the facts
OF this case, and particularly relating to its
trial in the Supreme Court at Washington,
and also an intimate knowledge OF the facts
touching the preparation of the opinion and
decree of the court pronounced in the case,
we are enabled to declare with the utmost
positiveness and certainty that counsel for
plaintiffs had no hand In the drafting OF the
opinion Of the court or any part thereof. nor
did they know which of the nine judges OF
the court had been assigned the preparation
of the opinion until after it had been read in
open court and we challenge the Republican
to produce the proof Of its bold but stupid as
sertion.


The Republican further alleged shat "the
court, in full bench, upon consideration Or
dered to be stricken out the offensive lam
,guage" adopted at the instance Of plaintiffs
counsel by Mr.. Justice Strong as the organ
OF the court, In drawing up his opinion, and
which the Republican AYERS that eminent
Judge "copied from the brief Of plaintiffs
counsel


Upon this charge, we have in the first place
to say that the inference, which the Repnbzs-
can evidently intended its readers to draw
from its statement that the full bench, on con-
sideration, ordered the offensive language
employed by Mr.. Justice Strong and copied
by him from the brief of plaintiffs counsel, to
be stricken out, Is entirely In conflict with the
facts as obtained by us from sources of un-
questionable authority.


The writer of the article In the Republican,
upon which we are commenting. evidently is
ignorant personally of the facts with which
he pretends to be acquainted. and is further
very ignorant OF the practice OF the higher
courts, and especially that of the Federal Su-
preme Court In the preparation of opinions
and their private consultations. We take
leave to enlighten him a little about it. having
such knowledge of the routine procedure Of
the judges In their consultation room as ena-
bies us to speak with confidence. When they
retire from the Bench to consult, each Judge
has copy Of the transcript Of the record and
OF the printed briefs Of counsel.


The Chief Justice assigns to each Of his as
,sociate Judges as he thinks proper or accord
ing to private rule Of their own the respec-
tive cases which have been argued in open
court or submitted on printed brief of argu-
ment alone That is to say he distributes
among the judges the cases which nave been
submitted to the court for decision that each
may prepare the opinion in the case Or cases