The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-07-16
The Democracy Seeking to Raise False
Issues.


sions in this country are not characterized by
greater spirit of candor. No party ever
gains anything by asoribing 20 its opponents
views which they do not hold. Our real diher-
enoes are grave enough without being aggra-
waited by Misrepresentation and falsehood.
There is something, too, about false issue
which Is distasteful to the honest and robust
thinker. The fighting of man of straw evinces
intellectual oowardice, if not weakness. Thus
the Democratic organ in this city strives most
uncandidly to make it appear that the Repub-
lcan party is not in favor of an honest and
inoorruptible judiciary. To do so it is obliged
to falsify the Republican position, as in the
closing sentence of the following extract
"The business of judges is to Interpret the laws
according TO those well.known principles which
underlie and give security and stability to the
whole structure of society. They are to be pure
men, free from personal bias or political prelu-
dtces, They may and will have political opi-
MONS, but these opinions are never to influence
their Judgments or govern their actions In a
party or personal direction. The Constitution
of the State and nation, and the laws enacted
by competent legislative bodies, are to be their
rule OF action. No mans cause is to be preju-
diced because he may differ from the judge Hpon
the bench, nor are laws to be looked at through
the misty atmosphere OF party clamor and ex-
element. Before and in the eyes of the law all
men of all political faiths, all religious beliefs
are equal and in that attitude tiiey must he
viewed by judge Il justice is to hold place
upon the bench. To this exposition of the char
agree"
Now, did the writer of the above extract
suppose that he was telling the truth when he
said that ''to this exposition of the character
and duties of a judge the radicals will not
agree" Did he mean to be candid and truth
f11 ho Ill. L Il
the radicals twill not agree" that it is "the
business of judges to interpret the laws
according to those well-known principles
which underlie and give security and stability
to the whole structure of society,"; that ''they
are to be pure men, free from personal bias
or political prejudices''; that their political
opinions "are never to influence their judg-
ments or govern their actions in party or
personal direction; that ''the Constitutions
of the State and nation, and the laws enacted
by competent legislative bodies, are to be their
rules of action''; that ''no mans cause is to
be prejudiced because he may differ from the
judge upon the bench''; 'that before and in
the eyes of the law all men of all political
faiths, all religious beliefs, are equal, and in
that attitude they must be viewed by Judge,
if justice is to hold place upon the bench''t
We say, does he really believe that the radi-
Gals twill not agree' to this ? OF course he
believes no such thing. He knows better.
Bigoted and malignant partisan as he is, he
does not believe one word of the statement
which he puts forth. II is pure invention
unrelieved misrepresentation, and shows that
the writer is an intellectual coward, and dares
not meet his opponents upon the real issues
of the campaign. He builds man of straw,
labels it Republican principles, and then pro-
ceeds in the most valiant manner to demolish
it. If the man had confidence in the opinions
and principles of his party, he would discuss
and defend them, instead of ascribing false
opinions and principles to his opponents.
The qualifications which he sets up for
Judge are mere truisms; nobody disputes
them. To argue that judges ought to be
"pure men," that emo mans cause is to be
prejudiced because he may differ from the
Judge upon the bench" ETC., is like arguing
that two and two make four.
The truth is, the Democrats have weighed
down their candidate for Judge with plat
form of political opinions so repugnant to
every principle of justice and right, that it is
a perfect milestone about his neck. So obnox-
ious is it to the more liberal and progressive
members of their own party, that their organs
dare not discuss it. They are already seeking
to cover up and hide the very issues they have
invoked. Like lawyer with bad case, they
are running off upon side questions and false
issues, and attempting to cover up the real
matters in controversy. But the shallowest
device they have cOnoocted is this one of de-
claiming against a partisan Judiciary. If they
dislike a partisan judiciary, why did they
make a partisan nomination and partisan
platform2 Why did they force a partisan
contest upon the people! Does anybody sup
pose they would have nominated Judge Shars-
wood had he been sound Republican
Let us have done with this nonsense. Let
our Democratic friends toe the mark, and
defend their rotten platform if they can.
They have chosen to make this contest politi-
cal one; now let them bring out their record,
and that of their candidate. Instead of beat
ing about the bush, uttering truisms which
everybody believes, and fighting men Of straw
of their own erection, let them come out and
make a manly and open fight upon the princi-
nles of their party. There is no contest as to
bs fitness of the nominees for the position, aside
,,o,n their political opinions. Both nominations
10 ,ortisan ones. Each candidate stands as