, 1859-04-04
The Judgeship Question
letter from Mr.. Higgins in which he
Co0founds his AccnRtrx.

Confounds Ills Accnatrx.
To TUE PrBL1c My friend Mr. Bakcr seem:
: fond Of seeing his name in print, and nlthougl
it is distastcful to me to be connected with hin
in TINT position. probably ought to submit II
the annoyance us it appears to crafty him 81
much thaye always been good-natured, and !
trust shall not allow myself to be disturbed
br him or the letters Of his friends.
5Havins always had great confidence in tbt
power Of truth over falsehood, and having somt
confidence in my reputation for veracity among
those who know. me, .Ta2 not disturbed by
the united statements of Mr.. Baker and his
friend 1lr. Hcrrick; because was willing te
rest my own statement with the public against
the two. But since Mr.. Baker seems afraid to
let the matter remain SO, and thinks it necessary
to add the statement Of Darid Stuart, ESQ.,.
shall be obliged to call the attention Of the pub
tic to the fact that Mr.. Mer7ick has not told the
truth about me at all timcs-and particularly he
has not told if in regard to making amy agree.
ucnt with me about the Judgeship. Nov fos
the proof Of this fact, can refer to prominent
member Of the Bar and gentleman Of his own
politics, to whom be stated on lis return from
Springfield, that he "could not make any bnr.
"gain With me ia regard to tic Judgeship; thut
IS ! thought Of being candidate and would not
Consent to anyshing; but that he '1ad frtd .nt,
"t.ot At hdd got On amendment to my Till zo1ich
"he had urranye4i sritA friend 10 l'ut tAronyh,
and which provided that no member Of the
Legislature should, during tie term for which
"he was elected, be eligible to the office Of
Judge Of the Superior Court" Such IN
amendment was prepared and left with the coul-
mittee, with REV to prevent my being can-
didate. And Mr. Mcrrick knows that hc threat
rnea to get such M amendment through, and
threatened to defeat my bill! because / would
nut consent to support Mr. BeckwitI, and b.
cause refused to make any agreement with
him; md hc aiso knows that told him to GO
ahead aud make his opposition, and tue record
will show, and Mr. Fuller Of this city, the
seuator from Tazewell knows, that such
an amendment aimed at 'ne was proposed, uad
will usk Mr.. Aerrick why lie did this
If I agreed TO his wishes? Was it flir
towards me, to get Inc to ag7ee to support Mr.
BcckwitL for one Of the Judges, when was
ANXIOUS, Us liz says, to be the other, for him to
draw up IN amendment to my bill providing
that should not BE- eligible to tho other Judge
ship. 1t is Incredible thut Mr. Mcrrick could
have been base enough to hare deceived me in
this manner, to hare got me to make an agree
ment in one end ofithc Capital, aud that, slbsc-
Quentlt, when WIS so un1ious to be one Of
the Judges, lie should have gone into the ether
end ofthc Capitol aud amended my bill by insert
ing clause that should not be eligible! Mr.
Mcrrick pretrnds tllut the Democrats we're i'll.
IL nrf l. e
agreement. Tue fact is every Democrat in The
Senate at the time the bill was beturc that body,
exccpt Martin, kuykcndall and l}uck.nastcr,
tried to kill il by their votes and by tleir
amendments. Why did Nr. Goudy, OF Fulton,
attempt to substitute Beckwith's bill III the Sen
ate If they. had agreed to support my bill:
Why did nisbec, nf Pike try to kill it viii. i'll
asueulmcu,. providing that process should not
issrr out nftllc County ifthcy had agreed to SUP
port MY bill? Why did Judge Underwood aud
Mr. Bryan intcrpose amendments to strike out Il
clause giving fees to tic Circuit Judge, if they
had u@reed torass my billy Why were motions
made to postpone the subject. and why were ail
t!le other parliamentary tactics resorted to, to
defeat the bill, if there was un agreement mndc
to support il. Why did Mr. Merrick, when lte
came Ilnn.e, complain to Que Of the cvmn.it,sa
III the bur, who had been appointed to 60 down
IL Springfield and urge the passage nf tile bill,
that Higgins would not agree to unwilling, if Is
he says, all agreement Wus nude and it WIS a!l
perfectly understood: There were only Two
Democratic Senators necessary tu pass the bill,
thirteen constituted nujurity, and the RI
publicaus had eleven; but our friends thought
w BETTER have unc IN spare. Now dues Mr..
Mrrrick ur Mr.. Stuart claim that they influenced
either Of the three Democratic Senators who
voted for the bill to vote for it if 30, which,
onc? The men lie had the most inhn-
encc with voted against it all tic way
through. and our Republican friends, who ilt-
duccd Mcssrs. Martil, kuykendall and luck
master to vote fur the bill, assurc ,nc that tile
matter If tl'e 1udscslip was not mentioned at
all, and thut there WIS not any agreement
about it.
Which Senator, tllcn, did Mcssrz. Stuart and
Mcrrick induce 10 yote for the bill, Tie trullt
is, that Mr. Merrick applied to ne to Makc III,
agreement to support C. Neckwtll for Judge,
and refused, tntIv. And tl!cn Mr.. Mcrrick
threatened tU kill thr bill, or to amend it by pro-
viding TINT should not BE- eligible To the office
If Judge; und he did try through lis friends IN
do hnth, aud fuilcd.
4 negative Gun seldom be proved; hut If tl4c
circumstances in this case 4rc not conclusive
to every one, might add the fact t4a. the door
keeper If the Huu>c of Representatives heard
1ne refuse TO nuke my agreement with Baker.
Mr. Dutx, our Representative, knows thut re-
fused 10 make any agreement, and liz also re-
fused, and advised Mr. Baker not to make any
agreement, as NC Lad no such power. ALL
Ward, If this city. 4. II. Doydcn. Treasurer of
Cook County, ". l.. Church, Clerk nf the Cir
cult Court, +. II. henson, Esq, and others, were
in Springfield at the time Of the passage Of this
bull, und know Us far ns men can know negative
ly. that ! made no snch agreement.
They, or some Of them, know affirn1ativcly,
that ut the time, told teu that l.ad been up
piled to tn make such m agreement, I had r..
fused and Mr.. BAKER, anl informed, has cl,ar.-
pf
ing the snnse agreement viii! him that he clain,s
to have made with me, which they respectfully
drnv.
II did moi make snch an agreement, and il
refused to make such an agreement even when
threutcned By Mr. Mcr1ick tc1A hi* opposition:
if told my fricuds that would not nuke suct.
an agreement, il is hardly probable that should
private pnssage and told him secretly
that I had agreed to do what Vi!
the facts and circumstances show that did moi
agree to. and what the admissions Of Merrick
made 10 his democratic friend after Ills return
frorn Springfield, show l did not agree to.
! remember having had conversation with
David Stuart, Esq.,, in the hall Of the st. Eicho-
las, a. or about tic time he refers to; and per
haps can refresh his recollection by telling
linn that the subject ST the conversation WAS the
rrnpriety Of releasing the Illinois Central Rail
way from all taxation orcE seven per cent. of
its gross earnings. Mr.. Stuart may recol|ect
that he was acting as lobby agent for that
road. and may rccol!cct his iusinnations that lie
WIS favorable to my election to the Office Of
Judge; pNs he will also recol!ect that his an.
prUucllcS did not meet with favor enough TO grt
my vote. and TINT refused tn vote for bis bill.
But Mr. Stuart cannot recollcct nor state truth
fully that ever said to him that had unde any
agreement. nor that amy person whatcver hnd
MY wnrd af honor for anything, or for nny
nirFertnpnt rc]nfinr IN fhts Ind nnshfns