Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1865-08-14
Judge Haynes.

organization OF the Court lie has dis
charged its duties with honor to himself
and advantage to the community. His
ability ana fitness, in all respects, for the
position, is unquestionable, as his personal
integrity is above reproach. His impar-
tiality and fairness Of character, was such
as to induce the Democratic party, upon
the occasion Of his reelection to the
Judgeship, to acquiesce in it, without pre-
fenting an opposing candidate. Judge
HAYNES has nevertheless been always
known in this community as an unswerv-
ing and vigorous opponent of the Demo
cratic party. Notwithstanding this, and
notwithstanding the asperity OF political
feeling that has prevailed here for the last
few years, there was a disposition mani
tested upon the part of Democrats, again
to acuuiesce in his reelection for third
term, to the position he has so ably and
satisfactorily filed for the past ten years.
We submit to all candid men, whether
this course does not conclusively show
that the Democracy of Montgomery coun-
ty have rather desired the promotion OF
the public and business interests OF this
community, than the achievement OF mere
partisan success.
How has this disposition been met on
the part of the Republican party ?
Although Judge Haynes is member
of their own political organization in un-
questionable standing; although all the
Republican members of the bar including
the nominee of their Convention) have
borne voluntary testimony to his eminent
fitness and ability, and united with almost
all the Democratic members of the bar,
inviting him to be candidate, and pledg-
ing him an "undividsd support" the Con
vention demanded of him the violation OF
his personal honor as condition of the
support of the Republican party.
Judge Haynes had already announced
himself as candidate. His nomination
therefore, by Convention, was altogether
unnecessary. In view of the correspond
ence between himself and the bar, pub
lished in both this paper and the journal
he regarded his acceptance of party
nomination precisely as any honorable
gentleman would have regarded it, under
similar circumstances, he unhesitatrngly
declined it,
Now, we ask, in view Of these facts, why
did the Republican Convention insist on a
nomination
1t will not be pretended that Judge
Haynes did not sut them as a Judge, nor
even that he was not sufficiently loyal ]
neither can it be claimed that his election
would have been made more certain by q
nomination.
Why, then, did the Convention desire
to make a nomination -? Wewill answer
The Convention, by its action, has said in
so many words: +" We want the Superior
Judge of the county to owe his official po'
sition to us as a political party. Judge
Haynes may be an unexceptionable Judge
his judicial integrity, and even his party
fealty. may be beyond question yet If he
will not consent to do an act, of which as
man of honor, he is incapable, and tc
hold the Office he now fills as our partisan
gift, imposing upon him partisan obliga-
tons, he shall not haze at dH."
Such is the language of that Conven-
ton, with few honorable exceptions
among the delegates, in this action, to the
people of Montgomery county. 1t is thus
they would pervert the sacred functions O.
the highest judicial position we have, tC
subserve mere partisan purposes and in
terests.
The Superior Court is a tribunal il
which all parties and all classes of ou
people ure equally interested. Its Judg'
should not only be no rsspeetsr Of persons
but ii possible should only owe his eleva
ton to the general voice of the people.
We shall await with anxiety the de
fence of this extraordinary action on tn
part of the gentlemen who are responsible
for it.
"TreasOn Tn state Sovereignty.
Under the above caption, the Journr
a has a labored article on estate Rights an