SUPPLEMENT TO THE TRIBUNE , 12'COUK , NEB. , NOV. 1 , 199a. I
\
APPELL FOR FAIR PLAY
Sham Honesty Exposed and the Facts in
Regard to Decisions of the Supreme
, Court Fairly Stated.
POLITICAL LIE NAILED.
A Complete Refutation of Anonymous and
False Charges Made Against the Supreme -
preme Court of the State.
i
E TIIE STATE iS BEING FLOODED ,
with supplements to Populist papers
purporting to give a record of the Supreme -
reme Court.
The animus of the publication is
denced by its headlines front which may
be selected ; "With and without Maxwell -
well , " "Railroads can d. stroy crops , "
"A Railroad ran defy laws , " "Railroads
vs. Farriers , " "f ailroads cankill men , ' ,
etc. , etc.
The supplement is amass of distortion
misrepresentation and falsehood , unworthy -
worthy any party and upon which are
based wholly unfounded charges against
Judges Norval , Post and Harrison and
fulsome praise of Judge Maxwell.
It is an appeal to passion and prejudice
made in the desperation of certain , dver-
whelming and merited defeat.
WHAT ARE THE CHABGES ?
In substance , that Judges Noval and
Post were B. & M. attorneys whose no-
mfnation and election together with that
of Judge Harrison as well , were PURCHASED -
CHASED by that Railroad and that an
examination of the cases decided shows
"tile Influence of the railways in placing
unnatural and forced constructions upon
contracts and laws in favor of such corporations -
porations , not only against the public at
large but as against railway and other
employees as well. "
Wonderful ability , marvelous industry
and a monopoly of honesty are claimed
' for Judge Maxwell.
The entire screed may be reduced to
this formula : "D-n the Supreme
Court , Bless Maxwell. "
To maintain the charges and claims , a
garbled and false startenment of numerous -
ous cases decided by the Supreme Dourt
is made.
made.WHO
WHO MAKES TIIESECIIARGES ?
The author of the supplement is not
' S given. The communication is anonym-
ous. The assault is made from behind
cover. No responsible man ever has or
d will over his own signature justify any
part of it.
who IS THE MAN ?
Has he a direct personal interest in
this campaign ? What are his means of
knowledge ? What is his name ?
tiVhat ms his business ? Why has he
50 long kept silence ? What prompts
him to write now and withhold his
identity ? Come out of the brush into
the open.
WHAT IS THE TRUTII ?
No proof is submitted to bolster up
the malicious charge of purchased nominations -
inations and elections.
i Judge Jfaxmcell himself supported and
voted for Judges P' orv al and Post when
they were elected to the Supreme Co rt.
So did his friends. That ought to be
sufficient on the point. Judge Maxwell
knew all about their nomination then.
No one claims to have learned more
since.
I If those elections were purchased ,
1 who sold out ? There can be no pur-
I chase without a sale. Certainly no Republican -
, publican was purchased , as he was
l necessarily for those gentlemen.
t Do Populists and Democrats appreciate -
ate the delicate compliment paid them
( ' by the Supplement published in the interest -
terest of Honesty ( ? ) and Reform ( ? ) .
FAIIt THEN. FAIR NOW.
m If the nominations of Tudges Norval
and Post were fair in the eyes of Judge
Maxwell at that time when he was look-
lug forward with eagergaze to a renomi-
nation by the same party , they ought to
be deemed fair by him and his newly
I found allies at this late date when he
opposes Judge Norval , who was renomi-
nated by acclamation without a dissent -
t j , ting voice by the largest and most representative -
resentative convention ever assembled
in time state.
NOT TRUE.
Neither is it true that Judge Norval
1 , was ever B. & M. attorney. He was
q never employed by the B. & M. railroad
company-he never received nor accepted -
cepted a retainer or fee fr m that corporation -
ration nor did he ever try a case or render -
der any service to that corporation. To
f I attempt to make capital out of employ-
went as an attorney is in any case con-
temptible.
t i The best attorneys may be and are
h daily employed to defend persons
charged even with crimes. Shall lie not
1 I accept a fee if tendered by a responsible
Ir r corporation to look after its legitimate
' ' civil business ?
But fudges NorvaZ and Post have been
on the District and Supreme Courts con-
' tenuously since March , 1833 , now more
than 1 ° yaars and hence entirely out of all
' ! practice. Every one should know this.
Did the fact escape the memory of the
young ( ? ) man who inspired the so
called "Record" and whose literary earmarks -
marks appear on almost every paragraph -
- graph ?
The supplement charges all the deci-
I lions to which it refers to Judge Norval
and seeks to leave the impression they
Were written by him.
, , THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS JUDGE NORVAL
DID NOT WRITE A SINGLE ONE OF
TIiEM.
They were in fact written as the record -
cord shows by other members of the
, courts , and it so happens that a majority
ity of them were written by Commis-
: 1 sioners Ragan and Irvine , the Populist
and Democratic members of the Com-
t mission. The decisions were nonpartisan -
, partisan and right. When truthfully
presented they will be found satisfactory
to a fair minded public.
It is a significant fact , an' ; affords the
: it . ; hi hest possible tribute to his legal
ur ttbihtytat while Judge a Norval during
his service on the Supreme Court has
Writtev between 500 and 600 DECISIONS ,
t "
R
-i. 1
-s
OR ONE FOR EVERY TIIREE.WORKINGS DAYS
OF HIS ENTHIE TERlI , all of which decisions -
sions are on record , open to inspection ,
his assailants have been UNABLE TO DETECT -
TECT the LEAST FLAW IN ANY OF THEM.
MAXWELL CONCURRED.
During time first four years of Judge
Norval's term , Judge Maxwell was also
on the bench.
In that time sixty-tw.l railroad cases
were decided , of which twenty-nine re-
stilted in favor of the corporations. In
every one of them except two , Judge
liaxwell concurred.
ONLY TWICE IN FOUR TEARS DID JUDGES
MAXWELL AND NORVAL DISAGREE ON
RAILROAD CASES.
It does not lie in time mouths of JudR
Maxwell and his friends t ) now claim
that Judge Norval was partial to the
railroads In two other cases AFTER lIE
HAD CONCURRED , and the decisions had
been published , and only a few days before -
fore his term of office expired Judge
Maxwell tiled dissenting opinions.
Even his most ardent friends will
hardly claim much credit for hum be-
caus of such conduct.
Every fair minded man however ,
must see how absurd is the attempt to
determine the QUALITY of a court by
reference to the business of the liti-
gants.
Fveay case must be decided according
to the law and facts involved.
A case comes up to the Supreme
Court on error or appeal from the trial
cou. t.
Error may have intervened in the
trial. If so the case must be reversed.
The more blundering the trial court ,
the more frequent are reversals. This
however , ms not the fault of the Supreme
Court. The people of this state want
fair courts. Courts which decide cases
upon the law and evidence.
A PREJUDICED MAN CANNOT BE A JUST
JUDGE.
A judge who decides cases because of
spite or by noting the business of litigants -
gants , the votes they command , or the
pull they have , is unfair and dangerous.
No man who makes a campaign for a
judicial position on time proposition
that he will decide cases against corporations -
rations , or a certain class of individuals -
als , regardless of the merits , is fit for
the place.
A SAMPLE OF DECEPTION.
Capital is sought to be made of the
action of the court in the case of Low
vs. Reese Printing Co. 41 Nebr. 127.
This case was brought under the eight
hour law which arbitrarily doubled
wages for each hour after the first eight.
Under the operation of this law , should
an emergency arise by which to save
property or the like , a man working for
y2.00 a day should put in 16 hours , he
would be entitled to sue for and recover
4129.50 for the 1t hours' work.
Judge Wakeley , Doane and Davis of
the Douglas County District Court 1
gentlemen of the highest character and
eminent as Judges , decided the law to
he unconstitional and void on theground
of class or special Ingi lation.
Tne case was taken to the Supreme
Court. It was allowed to linger without -
out any attempt to prepare it for trial
until the motion to advance it on the
docket was made. Judge Maxw ell agreed
with his associates that in the circumstances -
stances the case aas notentitled to ail- }
vancenrent over other cases where dili-
ence had been exercised and he there-
lore in his own hand wrote the order
of time court denying time motion.
The action of , the court was clearly
right but even ifwrong was not Judge
Maxwell equally to blame ?
Is it IiONEST to take an active part in
making and recording an order and then
afterwards assail the integrity of associates -
ates because of their acquiescence in
such action ?
t
TILE ARGUMENT OF NUMBERS.
Another argument sought to be made
in favor of Judge Maxwell is based upon
the large number of opinions he pre-
pared. This is a sorry plea. As well t
may it be claimed that a senator who
speaks for fourteen hours is the greatest t
statesman who ever appeared in a hall
once graced by a Webster , Douglas ,
Conkling or Blayne.
BUT HOW ABOUT TILE NUMBER ? c
During his first term. 1876.81 , Judge f
Maxwell wrote 325 opinions or only a
trifle more than half as many as Judge 1
-
Norval has written during-his term , s
covering the same number "f years. v
A certificate of these facts made by
Hon. D. A. Campbell , Clerk of time Sns
preme Court , is apt'ended. :
Judge Reese during his tern , wrote
549 opinions. He is praised for his I
ability and industry and rightly so and
yet Judge Norval has already filed as f
many opinions as did Judge Reese.
Why not be at least "middling honest"
and give him credit too ?
The average number of opinions filed t
per year by each member of the Supreme - ,
preme Court of the United States is 31 , e
or less than one third the number filed
by Judge Norval , \ 5
The average number of opinions per t
year filed by the members of the Iowa ti
Supreme Court , a court noted for its industry -
dustry , is 55 or about one-half the number -
ber filed by Judge Norval.
In no state of the Union can a more o
industrious Supreme Court be found
that we cow have in this state.
Not a single charge made against that
Court can be sustained.
THE CHARGES ARE NOT TRUE. d
If we deemed it pro r it would bean
- - -
-
, - T
. ay matter to assail Judge Maxwell
personally in return.
His coarse treatment of his assoclates
on the bench , his uncontrolable prejudices -
judices which cropped out on too many
oc : aeions doing injustice to the District
Judges , practicing attorneys and litigants -
gants who came beforehim , hie activity ,
not limited to the discharge of Judicial
duties , but finding large scope in the
preparation of books and lectures for his
peceniary profit whilehis time belonged
entirely to the State ; hie thrift is drawing -
ing a warrant for each quarter's salary
in advance and before he had earned a
cent of it , and causing it to be registered
that he mightas he did , drawinterest for
three months from the State without an
equivalent. his ingratitude to his party ,
all these would afford an ample field for
retributive warfare. No such emergency
is laid upon us. We bespeak only a
careful perusal of the cases to which attention -
tention has been called elsewhere in
other columns.
The malicious attack made on Judge
Narval will recoil upon those who made
it. No reform or good has ever beemi
accomplished by foul means.
No party can win by falsehood. The
people of this state are heartily tired of
hatred and strife. They cannot be
stampeded by the eq of Railroads.
They will not place in high positions
any one whose highest claims are based
on enmity to any legitimate business.
The Republican party presents to the
voters of this State for the position of
Supreme Judge , Judge Norval , who in
his speech of acceptance said :
"I accept the nomination as a Republican -
lican anll if elected my official "ath , the
constitution and the law of the land ,
shall be Inv platform and chart.
"It shall be iriy endeavor to discharge
the duties of my high trust impartially ,
faithfully and fearlessly.
'To administer justice without regard
to who may be time litigants , their position -
tion , business , wealth or standing , shall
be my constant purpose. "
With this we respectfully submit the
case to the fair minded , lawabiding
voters of the state for their considerate
judgement.
E. J. HAINER ,
Chairman Republican State Corn.
T. E. SEDGWICK ,
Secretary Republican State Corn.
THE REVIEW REVIEWED.
II. T. Conley , a populist attorney ,
of Pawnee City , answers the false
charges made against our Supreme Court.
From the Pawnee Independent , Oct.-5,1395.
To the editor of the Independent :
I have just read the supplement sent
out to the subscribers of your valuable
paper of last week , in which some one
pretends to review a few of the decisions -
sions of our State Supreme Court ,
upon questions relating to railroads ;
and as the author or authors strongly
intimate that Judge T. L. Norval , the
present Chief Justice and the Republican -
lican nominee , is a tool of time railroad
corporations , I respectfully ask that
you give me a limited space in your
paper to review some of the cases in
that supplement , as well as some of
the other decisions of the Supreme
Court on questions relating to rail-
roads. ,
I am led to make this review because
I am a friend of Judge Naval , and have
had a personal acquaintance with him
for more than twenty years and know
him to be an honest , upright man and a
just judge.
While I am , and have been for years
m Independent , yet I can not remain
silent when I know an injustice is attempted -
tempted upon an honest , faithful and
worthy official , even when to remain
silent might benefit my party candidate.
The 0. B. & Q. R. Co. vs. Wymore ,
40 Neb. , 615 , 58 N. W. 1120 , the opinion ?
was written by Commissioner Irvine'i
and not by Judge Norval as stated. The
court did not hold that because time
widow received the 4500 from the Relief
Association neither she nor her children
could recover , nor did i' hold that she
could not avoid the effect of her release
by proving it. had been procured by I
threats of turning her out of the house.
What the c curt did hold was that if she
voluntarily accepted the money a nil re- ;
eased the railroad from liability she
could not recover in her own right but
that her children might nevertheless
reeover. On the question of "duress"
the district court , had excluded all evidence -
dence „ nd the Supreme Court remam.ded
the ca-e for a new trial without deciding
that question. It could not he decided
is the case then stoon. In Burlington
Volunteer Relief Association vs. lVhite ,
41 Neb. 517 , 41 Neb. , 561 , time court has
veld the association to the highest decree -
cree of accountability. Its decisions on
these questions are in accord with those
of practically all the courts in the
country.
The opinion in C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v
Howard , 63 N.T . Rep. , 872 , was prepared -
pared by Commissioner Ryan. Howard
was a brakeman on the C B. & Q. R. R.
company's line and as such had directed
where a loaded coal car should be placed
on the main line. This was so placed
hat there was noroom for a car on the
side track to pass in switching. Not-
vitustanding this fact Howard requested
his fello brakeman to signal to send
back a show car on the side track so as
o give the occupants thereof a "damn
goad shaking up" This was done with
he result that a draw bar of the show
car was displaced and caught the foot of
Howard who was on theend of a freight
car immediately in front of the show
ar. It was held he could not recover
rom the result of his own negligence.
Howard sought to hold the company
fable for the alleged negligence of the
urgeons in amputating his foot. It
aas held that as Howard had alleged in
us petition that these surgeons "pos-
esserl a high clezree of skill , ability and
nn : ' ledge of medicine and surgery" the
ra Irnad company could not be held
iable under the circumstances foj a
mista a or negligence of the surgeons ,
ofowing Hewitt v Eisenbart. 36 Ne-
braska. , 794 , B case in which Judge Maxwell -
well Iiim elf as judge fully concurred.
In C. B. & Q. v Landaur , 36 Neb. , 642
he undisputed evidence is that the us- E
ial stop was made ; that the other ass- ,
ngers for the station had alighted and
most of them had reached the park gate
0 feet distant. After the brakeman on
he platform had shouted "all aboard , "
e train started tip and had got well
under way when the plaintiff rushed to
he door of the car and jumped without
warning to the trainmen or care for her
wn safety. The court in awarding a
new trial merely followed 0. & R. V. Ry
Co. V Chollette , 33 Neb. , 143 , where the
rule which should govern in all ouch
cases was stated by Judge Post in the
iirtrict court of Saunders county aad af
zmed bythe Supreme Court in an opine te
( e
Ion by Maxwell , J. It is true that Judge
Maxwell in his dissenting opinion refers
I to a number of cases , but a has un-
I fortunately copied his citations from time
wrong note to page G62 , 2 Am and En.
Encyclopaedia of Law. Another fact
overlooked by the gentleman vt ho inspired -
spired the recent assault upon the court
is that a rehearing was allowed in time
case which Judge Maxwell was a nmcm-
ber upon which the former conclusion
was adhered to , the juuges and commissioners -
sioners all concurring.
In C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v Grablin , 38
Neb. , 00 , it is said that the Supreme
Court held that if an engineer should be
asleep and kill a child on the track that
time railroad company would not be liable
for such negligence. Time court held no
such tiring , but exactly the contrary.
Read the opinion , It says : "Where a
child , no contributory negligence appearing -
pearing , while trespassing on a railroad
company's track is struck by an engine
and killed , the railroad company is
LIABLE'FOR DAMAGES , if the engineer in
charge of the engine by the exercise of
such careful and vigilant lookout as vas
consistent with his other duties , could
have seen the child in time to have prevented -
vented the accident. " This opinion was
prepared by Ragan , C , and concurred in
by Judge Maxsrr 11 Oct. 18 , 18t13 , when
it was filed and published. On Dee.
29 , however , after the Judge had failed
to obtain either the rz publican or
populist nomination. he filed a disent-
ing opinion. 't'his was evidently done
through a mistake as the decision follows -
lows an opinion of Judge Maxwell in
Huff v Ames , 16 Neb. , 139 ; and no
doubt the dissent came about through
the confusion ineideut to the selection
of campaign material for 1895-7 , etc.
In State v Hill. 38 , Neb. , 698 , 57 N.
W. 54S. Judie Davis in the District
Court of Douglas county had held that
time court had no jurisdiction of the case.
Commissioner Irvine wrote the majority
opinion in the Supreme Court atlimming
Judge Davis' judgenment. In the opinion
of the majority time question was considered -
sidered as one of law , and nut in the
light of a judicial trick to obtain a particular -
icular result in spite of the law. The
Supreme court has since on application
of time attorney general taken original
jurisdiction of the case , and it. is now
pending , awaiting a trial on its merits.
Being so pending any comment on time
merits is contemptuous and indecent ,
and none will here be indulged in.
In Morrissey v Railroad Company , 38
Neb. , 406 , was decided in time district
court by Judge Broady , and the supreme
court merely held that if a railroad company -
pany properly constructed its embankment -
ment it was not liable for incidential deflection -
flection of surface water , affirming the
judge rent rendered by Judge Broady.
The opinion was prepared by Commissioner -
sioner Ryan and was filed November
21st , 1893. Cmr December 29 following ,
Maxwell , C. J. , filed a dissenting
opinion. This was just three days before -
fore the commencement of the year
wnen Judge Harrison assumed his
duties. A note by time reporter accompanies -
panies Judge 11'xwell's dissenting
opinion in this language : rThQ opinion
in this case at time time it was filed was
concurred in by all members of the
court. Subsequently the chief justice
furnished the reporter time above dissenting -
ing opinion. "
In 0. & R.V. V Clark , 53 N. W. , 970 ,
35 Neb. , 869 , 57 N. 1V. 515 , 39 Neb. 65 , it
was in time first opinion declared that if
an engineer unnecessarily opened the
valves of his engine and horsas were
thereby frightener ; the railroad would
he liable. A rehearing was allowed
while Judge Maxwell was himself a
member of the court. The court had
before that time repeatedly held-Judge
Maxwell concurring in the decision-
that negligence was the doing of something -
thing which a man of ordinary prudence
would not do or the omitting to do
something which such a man would do
under the circumstances , and that the
existence of negligence was a question
for the jury where different reasonable
inferences might be drawn from the
evidence. The court therefore , on rehearing -
hearing , brought time case into harmony
with all these other decisions by holding -
ing that whether or not the opening of
tine valves was negligence depended upon -
on whether a prudent or reasonable
man would under the circumstances
have opened them. The final opinion
'vas written by Commission Irvine.
In Erb v Eggleston 60 N. W. , 98 ; 4.
Neb. 8G0 , the mendacious author of these
so called "Official Record or Supple-
ment" would leave iris readers believe
that the brakeman signalled the engine -
gine to stop after ire fell upon the track
and leads one to infer that he was injured -
jured by the engineer's failing to respond -
spend to the signal. The facts were
that the brakeman himself directed
every movement which was made , tried
to jump on the car when the engine was
only 8 or 10 feet away , and fell because
he had misjudged the speed of the car.
He gave no rignal after lie fell and every i
signal he had given was promptly obeyi
ed. The "Supplement" says that an
examination of the opinion shows that
if there can be no recovery in this case
there cannot be in any. On the contrary - t
trary such an examination , which is invited -
vited , will show that.if there could be a t
recovery here there could be in every .
case where a man is injured in consequence
quence of lmis own carelessness. The
opinion was by Commissioner Irvine.
The opinion in Low v Rees Printing
Company 41 Nebraska , 127 , and which 1
was prepared by Ryan , C. , it was held t
by the Supreme Court that special leg-
lation in favor of or against any class of t
laborers was unconstitutional and that t
the same objection obtained as to the S
attempt by legislation to deprive labort
era of the right to contract with refers
once to compensation for services to be
rendered. This was the holding of
Judges Wakely , Deane and Davis who
together heard and decided this case in of
the Douglas county District Court. It
fs intimated , upon Judge Maxwell's srig-
Restion , doubtless , that before he retired - c
tired from the Supreme bench lme favored - i
vored advancing this case to a speedy i
hearing.
The ruling in denial of the motion to t
advance was entered by Judge Maxwell - e
well in the court calendar and there
may now be found in his own hand-
writing. It would be gratifying if the o
e
venerable jurist referred to would in- s
dicate what would have been his dis- „
sending opinion , if as chii'f justice , he u
had marked the case to be advanced.
In C.B. & Q. v Coceran 42 Neb. 531 , a c
position as billing clerk was reserved for
the plaintiff for more than a week and c
his excuse for not accepting it was that 0
the letter notifying him of his appointment -
ment which was written Satumday night
was not posted until Monday following. 0
The fact is as shown by the opinion that
he plaintiff was at the time in the
ervice of the Lincoln Street Railway c
rompauy nil his consul t i mcu rated b ,
a demibermte rejection of the preferred
position.
Omaha Fair & Expo iti' ' n association
vs. Mo. Puc. R. R. GO N. W. 830 ; 42
Neb. 105 , was a contest between several
corporations. Commissioner Irvine
wrote the opinion. The jury had found
time facts in favor of the ruthoad cout-
par.y and the judgment vvas affirmed.
It is false that the court held that the
owner of property must guard against
fire i neglectfully set. Time court held
directly thecuutrary , that is , that the
owner of land must take stich precaution -
tion as one of ordinary prudence would
take to guard against the ordinary haz-
ant of fires but that he need not guard
against the negligence of railroads.
The Exposition Co. lost its case because
time jury found that the railroad court -
t pany had not been negligent.
An examination of the published decisions -
cisions of the supreme court of this state
is sufficient to show that our highest
court is no more under the control of
railroad corporations than before Judge
Maxwell left the bench. During the
last four years be was a member of the
bench , there were opinions filed in 63
railroad cases , of which 28 were in favor
of the corporations and 35 against. The
record further shows that Judge Maxwell -
well concurred in all of these 28 decisions
for the railroads , excepting two , in
which he filed dissenting opinions. As
elsewhere stated he filed dissents in two
other cases long after lie had concurred
in the judgments. In no case decided
against a railroad , since Chief Justice
Norval has been a member of the court ,
has lie dissented against the judgement
rendered. From the time , i udg. ' 11 axw ell
retired to private life to the beginning
of time present year there have been 40
railroad cases determined in omre-half
of which alone the decisions , were
given to the railroads , amid in some of
these the judgements in time trial Courts
were also for the corporations. During
the entire period Chief Justice Norval
has been a member of the supreme
court lie has filed opinions in but 17
railroad cases , as follows : State ex ref
v C. B. & Q. R. Co. , 29 Neb. , 412 ; Black
v C. B. & Q. R. Co. , 30 Neb. , 197 ; C. B.
& Q. R. Co , v Hogan , 30 Neb , 68G ; 0. &
N. P. R. Co. v Janecek , 30 Neb. , 276 ; U.
P. Ry. Co. v Broderick , 30 Neb. , 735 ;
D. T : & G. R. Co. v Hutchins , 31 Neb. ,
572 ; C. B. & Q. V Moore , 31 Neb. , 91 ; 0.
It. I. & P R. Co , v Witty , 32 Neb. , 275 ;
C. B. & Q. R. Co. v Barnard , 32 Neb. ,
300 ; Trester v M. P. R. Co. 33 Neb. , 171 ;
F. E. & M. V. R. Co. v Sebright , 34
Neb. , 253 ; State ex ref C. B & Q. R. Co.
V North Lincoln Street Ry. Co. 34 Neb. ,
634 ; B. & M. R. Co. v Koonce , 34 Neb. ,
479 ; A. & N. R. Co. , v Boerner , 34 Neb. ,
241 ; Anderson v C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. 35
Neb. , 95 ; 0. & R. V. R. Co , v Rickards ,
38 Neb. , 847.
In eight of these the decisions were
in favor of the corporation. and they
were decided while Judge Maxwell was
a member of the court , and time opinions
were concurred in by him. It should
be stated that in three of time cases ,
Trester v. M. P. Ry. Anderson v. C. B.
& Q , and Blacir v. C. B. & Q the Supreme -
preme court affirmed the juogement of
the trial court. The case of C. It & Q.
V. Hogan , 30 Neb. 686 , in which the
opinion prepared by Judge Norval sus- '
tafningtime position of the corporation ,
was a rehearing of the case reported in
27 Neb. 801. The first odnion was by
Judge Maxwell and it too was irm f tear
of the railroad company and this
opinion was adh' r : d to on the
second hearinc. In A. & N R. Co. v.
Beorner , 34 Neb. 241 , the opinion
was written by Judge Norval reversing
time case for errors occurring during the
trial. After which another trial was had
resulting in a verdict and itulgment for i
Boerner. The railroad brought the case i
to the Sapreure court again for revie v , r
the jutlgument teas affirmed after Judge
mlaxwell bad left time bench , the opinion - 1
ion being reported in 63 North Wet-tern
Reporter , 7s7. The other cases decried
by Judge Norval in favor of railroads we
will not stop to review.
JudgeMaxwell's friends must concede
these cases were correctly decided for
he concurred therein.
Had the friends of Judge Maxwell f
besn disposed to he fair in their criticism -
cism of the Supreme Court they would t
not have omitted mention 01 nurneroiis
important deer-ions rendered during the i m
samne terns against railway corporations r
Among these may be noted Mare re ] t
Lan'aster county v C. B. &Q R. R. Co. , e
29 Neb. , 412 , sustaining the lawcorn -
pelling railroads to make and keep in
repair suitable crossings and approaches
when they cross highwavs , 0. & N. P.
R. R Co v Janacek , 30 Neb. , 370 ,
awarding d images to property resulting
from smke , soot and cinders from en-
gives.
U. P. R. R. Co. v Brodrick , 30 Neb. ,
735 , sustains a judgment for 41,995 damn-
ages for personal injury and holds when
the employee without fault on his part
s injured by the compa y providing F
mim with improper and unsafe apparatus -
us , the company ms liable.
C. B. & Q. R. Co. v Goreoke , 32 Neb. ,
90 , sustains a judgment rendered against
he company for the value of a cow.
This case ought to be allowed as a set off
o the great credit claimed by Judge
1laxwedl in the cow case reported in 12
eb. , 77 , nine years beforeJudge Norval
became a member of time court.
C. B. & Q. R. Co. vs. Witty , 32 Neb.
275 , was to recover the value of a stal-
roe killed while being transported over
he defendant's road. There was a verdict -
dict for 4400. The bill of lading con-
ained a stipulationdimitima the if abili-
y of the company for damages to live
took at 4100 to each animal , and fur-
her that the company assumes no ra-
ponsibility for safety of stock in charge
the shipper or his went , from .any
cause or a crdent , or injury except those
occasioned by reason of gross negligence
the company. By reason of this stipulation -
ulation the railroad contended that it
was released from liability. There ' a
inflict of authorities upon the ques ion
n the different states , yet Judge Norval
n his opinion held that a ' 'common
carrier of live stock , cannot by a con-
ract with a shipper , release itself , eith-
r in whole or in part , from liability
from injury or loss resulting from its
vvn negligence- " This cannot be claim-
ii as 'an unnatural and forced con-
truction upon contracts and laws" and
an unnatural and forced con-truction
lion contracts and laws in favor of
orporat ons. "
This last is a most important de-
ision. In each of these cases the
pinion was prepared by Judge Norval.
Decisions should be treated on their
merits , not by the person in whose favor
r against whom they may have been
rendered.
In conclusion I would say , that I
oneider the Populist Party in VERY
SMALL. business when it gnt's outetd't of 1
its own ranks for a raudi 'ate for u-
preme Judge , and then makes a wilful
and nmalicititms tuitatement of facts and { s
hY such disreputable tactics seeks to E
obtain votes for such nomiinee.
H.1' . CONLEr.
Dated Pawnee City , Nebraska , Oct. "
ober 23 , 1893.
m
READ TIIE OFFIGiALRECORD. . 1
1
TILE STATE OF NEImRASKA , se
I , D. A. Campbell , clerk of the Supreme -
preme Court of said state , do hereby
certify that during the last four years of
Judge Maxwell's terns on the bench of
the Supreme Court , which period covers '
the first four years of Judge Norval's -
term , them were tiled opinions fu sixty-
two cases in which a railroad company '
was a party. In twenty-nine of these
the dectgion was in favor of the corporations -
tions , and thirty-three aainst ( , that
Judge Maxwell concurred In all these ,
deeieiona at the daft , they were filed oz- 1
c0 t two.
further certify that ( luring said ,
period Jude Norval filed sixteen opm-
lo S in cases in which a railroad com-
pany was a party , of w lmich eight were I
against the corporations and eight in i
favor of the corporations. Of the latter
three aflirmed the decisimr of time Dfs-
trict Court , IIL has since January I , '
1894 tiled but one o1inion in a case ma i
which a railroad cnuipany'was a party ,
which opinion was adverse , , to the railroad - ,
road commpany. All of vvhmcli appears
from vols. 28 to 43 , Nebraska Reports. +
In testimony whereof r
have hereunto set my hand
SEAL } . and caused to be affixed the r
seal of said court this 25th
day of October , A U. 1895.
i ) . A , C.tln'ImKLL , I
Clerk and Reporter.
I alrne' i hl Politics. 1
1I
From Pawnee IadeIcadent : I
We give space this week to stn article
from Attorney ConlaY of this city re '
viewing the supplement which vvas issued -
sued to the readers of time Independent
inst week. We have no desire to he art
fair in our treatment of political mat-
ters. and do not want to advance Max j
well's chances by nmisrenrementiug imis
opponent or by stating that which i f
not true in regard to the past record of
Judge liaxwell or Judge Norval.
Ttme foundation principles of the
popubst party are broad enough for all
campaign purposes without reS"rtint ; to
time time worn methods of detraction ' ,
used by the old partir s. We are assured -
sured by Mr. Conley , w imo is a gentleman -
man of good repute. that time matter
contained in the suppleument wire
wholly partisan and iiitl ntion ally
misleading. 'l'ime supplement wz's
printed and prepared by the populist
state central conrnmittee and had not
been examined by us at the tiume f , was
issned. We therefore w iilinziy urant
time required space s ) set the matter
might
Time a pearance of our supplement '
arm sell all the friyh in Mr. Conley' in
defen'e of Judge Norval ; for , although
an independert , he has for years been a
a warul p"r nn.tl friend of Norval , the
re alt of earlier association tosetbcr , and
while iu Liw oln the past week he took
orcasi0n to look up the eases referred to i
in time supplement , with conclusions as
Shown.
The American people are at all times
in favor of fair play , and if time couelus-
ions stated by Mr. Conley are correct
the supplement which way sent to all
the independentpapers of the state and
ued by them a to their readers will
Drove a boonmerang to .Judge lIaxwell , :
and lose Nina thousands of votes which
vrnnld rihtfully belong t0 11im. L will
also prove a warning t" the state central y
: otnnmittee of the independent party to j
mereafter use none but honest methods ;
n pushing their campaign. r '
i
The Partirrtn Organ m'Ity. ; d Out.
i
The partisan journalism which sees
nothing but virtue on its oven side ,
and only sin on time other is i
gradually aoimt out. There is an I
ahnost univer al prptilar demander
or the truth. There is a public
protest agaainst the old-time prac-
ice of imurnbmi tying. 'there is hope that
time may (0111C wlmetm a nran or woman
ima } expect to find , in any reputable
mewspaplr that may - be at hand , the
ruth about political-nmeetrtmgs and other
'vent = in politics.-Cincinnati Enquirer.
1
j
,
REPUBLICAN TICKET. i
STATE.
For Supreme Judge.
T. L. NOItVAL. Seward. r
or Regents of the State Univernity. _
C.1L MORRILL , Lincoln. i i
H. L GOOLD , Keith County.
r
Tote for Prosperity.
ate for Honesty in
Politics.
ote or Norval ,
Tote for C. H. Merrill
I
Tote or oo ,
r