Monmouth weekly herald. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1854-1860, 1859-10-28
GOV. NEWELL ON THE CHAN
CELLORSHIP.

sponded In brief speech, q part Of which
we publish below, as copied from the
Monmouth Inquirer After few remarks
on the fitness of the legislative candidate
selected, and in regard to local affairs, he
proceeded to speak as follows:-
Gentlemen::-I was my intention, after
the embarrassments to which / have
already been subjected in relation to the
now vacant CHARACTERISTIC, to have kept
silence ON the subject. But the bitter
ness with which it is still pursued by in
| terested parties, impeIs me, unpleasant
as it is for me to appear on the stand, to
seek this opportunity to correct some of
the misrepresentation which have OF late
been so industriously circulated in rela.
ton thereto. And | know of no place
where / can do so more OPPORTUNITY, than
here within call of the home of my child
hood, and in the presence of friends who
have ever honored me with their conf
dence and support.
1t is not my design to enter into an
argument as to the relative rights and
duties which devolve upon the various
branches of the appointing power, for my
views upon that point have been made
known; but | shall con6ne myself to a
notice of few of the fallacies into which
those who are now seeking to enlighten
the public have fallen.
1t has been freely charged that l have
sought to make partisan Judiciary. In
making my first nominations tor Justices
of the Supreme Court, | voluntarily NOM
mated for re,appointment, a gentleman
(Goy. Haines) who, while he held the ap
pointing power, never divided with his
opponents-possibly because he was ney-
er invited to do so-the appointments
within his gift. In my extreme desire to
effect an honorable adjustmentof the diff
fculties, and to prevent an interregnum
in an important Court, subsequently
presented the name of distinguished
member Of the other party, already upon
the bench, Judge Elmer,) whose name
was for nineteen days in the hands of the
Judiciary Committee of the Senate, with.
out even report being made in favor of
his confirmation. Here was held out for
nearly three aoeeks voluntary offer to
divide equally the appointments to the
Supreme Court, with party to which |
was under no obligations to concede a
single nomination. MAn act of liberality
for parallel to which one will search in
vain the records of their party, either in
the State or General Government.
There are those who would seem to be
harboring the delusion that in times past
the Democratic party had sought to in
augurate the system of making judicial
appointments independently of political
considerations; but survey of the facts
in the case will serve to dispel it. The
uniform practice of the party in New Jer
sey, with two exceptions, has been to
make selections from amongst its own
members. 1t is true that an honored
Democratic Governor did appoint the
present Chief Justice: but this was done
only after Senate of opposite political
views had confirmed two of his previous
nominees, members of his own party, to
the same Office, (Messrs. Vroom and
Wurts, both of whom declined; and af
ter, as | have been credibly informed, the
nomination had been rendered to third
person of the same party, who also de-
clined. 1t is well known that in this case,
after the two nominees had been con
irmed and had declined, the members Of
the Supreme Court waited upon the Elk
ecutiye and requested him to re nominate
Chief Justice Green. but no effort was
ever made, SO far as have learned, either
to intimidate or to persuade him from
carrying out his own predictions.
The other exception was that Of Judge
Vredenburgh, nominated by my imme-
date predecessor. This was pursuant to
an arrangement made previous to the pas
sage Of the law providing for the appoint
ment OF two new judges-which was, that
in consideration of the equal services of
both parties, one OF which had control of
the Senate and the other of the House of
Assembly, in passing the bill, each should
be entitled to one of the new appoint
ments to the bench. This was a fair
contract, honorably carried out, and with
out which the bill could not have become
law. No far-minded, intelligent man.
not the distinguished Executives them.
selves who made these appointments
will claim that in either of these cases
was ii sought to inaugurate the system Of
an independent Judiciary.
1t IS with great reluctance that am
Obliged to make statement which will
create SO unpleasant surprise to the
gentleman In question himself honora
BILE in the extreme-but am compelled
to do SO In self defence, and | must not
avoid it. 1t has been asserted that
" three fourths of the people," :" the iu-
dicial bench and bar" had asked at nv
hands the appointment of the late Chan.
cellor. The truth is, that although the
Courts were in session at the tine of the
controversy, not one member of the Judi.
cial bench, not twenty of the four hun.
dred lawyers of the State, and but com.
paratively few of the people, either in
person or otherwise, petitioned for his
appointment.
1t mas been said that bartered away
the CHARACTERISTIC to aid in obtaining
my present position. j pronounce the
assertion to be false in every particular.
came to the Executive chair, as | shall
leave 1T, pledged to no man. was never
tenacious as to the particular individual
who should Eli the Chancellorship, as is
best proven by the well-known offer which
made to nominate for confirmation
either of nine gentlemen whose names
were designated in a communication to
the Senate.