How could lawyers who lost their cases blow off the indignation, if they couldn’t cuss the judge?
You state that you were not cast down by the decision which went against you. Right. Why should you be?
Whatever was true, previous to the decision, was true afterward.
And there’s where our political leaders fall down.
They go about the country telling the people that a certain candidate for office is “unfit for the nomination,” and after he is nominated the same politicians claim that the nomination makes him fit.
How can a nomination make a bad man good?
That’s a deferred question which W. J. B. will answer some day or other, and you will then see it done to the queen’s taste.
Evidently you are not discouraged by the fact that you went up against a tribunal which wouldn’t yield to reason, eloquence, fact or fancy—a tribunal which had made up its mind before its members heard your speech. Right again. It’s your duty to furnish the convincing argument; it is not in your power to supply judges with minds open to conviction.