Judge Huntington's Decison

Editob of the Abous : Many of our citizens are very much dissatisfied with the late decisión of Judge Huntiugton in the Rose-Douglas case. Thia is not an unoommon thing : in fact the same thing occurs in every important case that is tried in our courts. One party must be defoated íd every law suit, and of course the defeated party is very much dissatisfied with the decisión ion otthecourt. Lawyers see so much of this that it soon becomes an old story, and they apply all the soothing remedies at their command to quiet their angry clients. An adverse decisión hurta our pride of opinión. We have made up our minds how the matter ought to be decided, and of course our judgmsnt is just as good as thejudgmentof the court. Why are we not just as competent as Judge Huntington to determine a question of fact when we have heard all the testimony ? The worthy citizen cannot see why the opinión of the court should have more weight than his own, and consequontly coudemns the court for not agreeing with him. I greatly fear, however, that the wortliy citizen has not fully and carefully considered all the facts and circumetancos that may have tended to warp his judgment and lead him to a wrong conclusión. Did he not start out In his investigation of the case with a fair conviction that his friend was innocent ? Did he not, in fact, before the cnae wa9 tried, come to the conclusión that his friend was innocent, ani did he not frequently and openly expresa that opinión. Did he not, ia fact. become so thoroughly convinced that his views were correct, that all the tostimony in the worlil would not changa them, and did h not frequently and openly so declare ? Our worthy oitizen must admit that tli is was his ftate of m nd Ion; before the case was tried. Would he then, in such a state of mind, be a proper judge or juryman to try the case ? Uur worthy citizen very well knows that he has always been rejected as a j uryman in a case when he admits that he has fonned or expressed an opinión as to the merits of the case. Judge Huntington is one of the most honest, conscientious, and careful judges in the State. His character is above reproajh. Those who are most partisaa in this case, and most dissatisfied with his decisión, can only complain that he wears " too large boots " and " too small a hat," very slight defects in character one would suppose. During the trial of this case there were very frequent remarks by friends of the defeated party that the Judge was trying the case fairly, and that he acted without prejudice toward either party. If the opinión of such a judge is not worthy of your respect and confidence, then where and how are you going to get judges whose opinions will be worthy of confience ? Your conduct since the decisión of this case will not at all tend to iuduce honest and conscientious men to accept judicial positions, or cause the lawless classes to respect the law ind the courts. It our worthy citizen publicly denounces an honest and conscientious judge, simply because he differs with hira in opinión in a case so complicated as this, we fear that he will live to repent his folly when tome villain, with only a little greater contempt tor the courts, knocks him down in the st reets and rifles his pockets. Dunng the progress of this case our worthy citizen has shown great waut of deliberation and consideration in his acts, if nothing worse. We all reniemb.ir that at one time Judge Uuutington, on motion of the opposite party, was required to determine the question whether Mr. Beal had been guilty of contempt of court. He decided that he had been guiilty of contempt, and a Tery moderate fine of one hundred dollars was imposed. It is said that one hundred of our worthy citizens subscribed a dollar apiece to pay the fine and it was paid to the clerk ol the court. The paper subscribed by the one hundrud worthy citizens stated that they did not queatiou that the tine was legally and properly imposed. They undoubtedly did not thmk that this action said to Mr. Beal in the plainest terms, " We think you are acting very properly in committing contempt of court and violating the law." They of course did uut think that in taking thia action they said to every lawless person in this community, it is proper ta viólate law, disregard the courts, uud repudíate their decisions. (iet drunk, steal, break into our houses and stores, set fire to our buildings, the laws are of no account, the courts are not worthy of respect. This is the direct command of all such conduct, and it is more emphatic and has more force thau if only stated on the streets. Would it uot be well for our worthy citizen to stap a moment and conaider whether he has not too much interest in huviug the laws and courts respected to thus encourage lawlessiioss and a disrespeat for the proper administratiou of justice in our community ?