Show NO USE DEHTIBTGr IT I The reversal of himself by Judge Bartch in the application for a writ of I prohibition is a matter of mirth among some people and of mortification to others Lawyers laugh over it men who dislike to see the bench brought into derision are vexed about it But our neighbor the Tribune in its usual inconsiderate and inconsistent manner not only defends the judges action but denies that he has done anything any-thing of tie kind It says Tha writ of prohibition was not passed upon We stated that it was and the Tribune appeals to the record If by that is meant the record of the court we answer the record is not complete until passed upon by the judge The clerk had the matter all right when the judge denied the writ The newspapers food it reported so The lawyers who made tire application so understood It And Attorney Zane With the approval of the Tribune commented com-mented upon it in that paper in an insulting in-sulting manner But between the rendering of the decision and the making mak-ing up of the record Judge Bartch had time to change his mind and also his ruling So the court record will probably pro-bably show to the contrary of the de clsVon as It was given in court and generally understood But from other remarks of the Tribute Tri-bute we are ted to suppose it means the record of the trial as pubished in the papers All right let us go to that record We will take the TrJsunes report re-port not that it is any better than the others but so that at cannot wiggle out of the matter These are the concluding words of the 1 opinion of Judge Bartch given In full i The writ of mandate is granted I The writ of prohibition is denied I What does that mean The report I is the same in all the papers and was so made < officially by the court clerk II As to the reasons for the denial the fact of that denial remains whatever I they may have been and that is the point now in dispute The Judge did deny the writ there is no use in denying deny-ing that fact It is true the Tribune with its usual fatuity over the very I article which showed that the writ of prohibition was denied put the headline head-line Democrats Defeated In All The Contests a flat falsehood refuted in the contest But next day it showed I that things were left in something of I I I a muddle through that decision and gave particulars about the dispute of attorneys the day after the decision over the dosts > dm the prohibition casein case-in these words During the argument Jude Bartons action in denying the writ of prohibition prohibi-tion was again referred to and Judge I Zane asked His Honor upon what i ground he held that the writ did not I lie I The question of Costs being sprung I Judge Zane is reported by the Tribune as saying JWe made out such a good case that they conceded it but under Your Honors ruling the costs are thrown upon us As to that replied Judge Bartch I can only say that in deciding a case the court woud not consider the matter mat-ter of costs but would let them follow the ruling So much from the court report given by our perverse contemporary Now for its own editorial comment The writ of prohibition to prevent the Commission from going into the ballot boxes to recount the votes and to prohibit the Commission from issuing issu-ing certificates of election to persons other than the petitioners is denied by the Court on the ground that the Commission Com-mission had already invaded the ballot boxes and inasmuch as the defendants had in open court agreed to Issue certificates cer-tificates on the returns there is no occasion for grafting the writsTrI bune editorial Jan 12 We need go no further in demonstration demonstra-tion of the fact that Judge Bartch did deny the writ of pronibition and did say the costs should go with that ruling rul-ing Now if to prevent that being his decision of record and thus throw the costs on the defendants is not reversing himself what is 5t What is the use then of the Tribunes attempting to deny the patent fact saying there was no decision and as a bluff appealing to the record The question of costs has been a great trouble to the Tribune and the counsel for the petitioners and that was what prompted the Tribune to pass round the hat for anything less than five dollars a drop It is of no use for the Tribune to try to dodge this plain matter of record Judge Bartch did deny the writ of prohibition If he and bhe Tribune were to swear to the contrary con-trary toeforas heaven and earth the truth would remain and its brazen denial de-nial is suggestive of the other place |