There are tw.« memorials, each of v’hich
is sworn to by the parties familiar with the
allegations, and each memorial has f< r the
basis of the charges preferred, exhibits or
records attached, all certified under the
seal of Judge Miller’s own court. I bus it
will be seen the charges do not rest upon
bare allegations of individuals hut upon
the court records themselves. Upon those
in the main he must stand or fall. Of
course other mattets than those directly
embraced in the meinorials are not pre
cluded and it is expected the trial will be &
long and tedious one, traveling over years
of alleged misconduct, and thoroughly ven
tilating the notorious alleged complicity of
the “law firm of the sou” in “running the
Court.”
These memorialists claim to have been
bitterly oppressed. They have worked
their way thus far, at great labor and ex
pense, . nd in the face of the natural resis
tance and powerful influence of the court
and its rebtiners, until it has Itecome an es
tablisbed fact that something is to
For years past there has been a strong and
growing prejudice or something more sub
stantial and ju«t than mere prejudice against
Judge Miller’s Court. A deep and wide
spread feeling of gratification prevails
throughout the State over the prospect
that the allegations against it are a I tout to
be subjected to a rigid, thorough and im
partial scrutiny. —Si ate Journal.
