The Elk advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Elk Co., Pa.) 186?-1868, 1867-10-03
THE SUPREM ME JUDGESHIP.
Remarkable Pamphlet from
David Paul Brown, of
Philadelphia.
WHAT A LEADING RADICAL LAWYER
THINKS OF THE TWO CANDIDATES.

issued pamphlet often pages, entitled
the Press, the Politicians, the People
and the Judiciary"
lam Republican, and have always been,
am in favor Of Equal rights in the widest
sense, and am also an advocate for the best
men in the best and most appropriate places.
| OF course l am opposed, subject to these
views, to mere party prescription, or mere
| party preference. Party adhesion should
never control my choice or my vote in regard
to the candidate OF any Office when morally
and intellectually he was more deserving of
that office, and more competent for the dis,
charge of its duties, than any competition
| whom a political convention NAV think
proper to nominate. In cases of equal claim,
and equal qualifications, Of course, as n Re-
publican, l should cling to q. Republlenn
nominee. But even this might depend upon
the nature Of tho post Involved In tho party
conflict, ftbe post wore purely political,
or would Involve some principal vital to- the
respective parties, Of course sh ould stand
by my party although tho adverse nominee
were independently considered entitled to a
| preference. But TO come to the point, in the
case Of q nomination ofa JUpuE or THE ST..
PREME Court, or any other Court, should
| be governed, not by the question whether
the candidate was Republican or q Demo
crat, but whether he was best adapted to the
fulfllment of his high Office; and in saying
| this let it be understood, would not up,
prove of party political Judge on either
side, nor would vote for any man for such
position who was bound to any party pro-
gramme which might influence him in the
discharge of his high and impartial func-
tions.
Iconcur in the doctrine Of the Demo cratic
| programme that wise, upright and fear
| less Judiciary is the great bulwark of public
safety and individual Rights" and concur
also IN the truth Of the declar1tion "that in
the nomination Of George Sharswood for a
place on the Supreme Bench of the State,
they have selected q man who is in all re-
spects worthy of the confidence and support
| of those who are in favor of an emil lightcned,
faithful and impartial administration of the
Law"
Mr., Brown dissents from the re-
maiudcr Of the Democratic platform ;
but this does not prevent his supporting
Judge SnARswooD. He says:
"Judge Sharswood in the year 1851, was
nominated by the Whig Democratic, Nation.
nj Union Temperance, and WorKingmen's 5
Conventions, each of which adopted differ
ent platforms. In 1861, he was nominated
by the Republican, Union or Independent
party, and the Democratic Conventions each
ofwhich had platform somewhat different
from the others. Yet nobody ever dreamt
that the variety and contrariety of the re
speetive programmes had any connexion
with, reference to, or influence upon, the
triumphant election Of their distinguished
and impartial candidate for judicial honors.
The present opposition, therefore, is mere
party fetch. 1Dhich THE PEOPLE IN THEIR
STRENGTH SHOULD MAGNANIMoUsLY REBUKE
AND DEFEAT"
Of Judge WILLIAMS, the Radical
Candidate Of his own party, Mr.. Brown
says:
"That the Hon. Henry W. Williams, the
Republican nominee for the Supreme Court
is gentleman of good abilities, man of
learning, graduate of Yale College, q ma
tive of Connecticut, man of character and
of forty six years old, (all of which has
been asserted in his behalf we are by no
means inclined to dispute. We know moth.
ing to the contrary of these recommends.
tions, nor do we deny that he was elected
Judge Of the District Court of Allegheny
county, in the year 1861, without organi.
zed opposition But what does this all
amount to ? Tono more than can be said
Ola dozen Judges of the various Courts Of
Pennsylvania. How little is all this to the
practical proof of the unquestioned and
uhdoubted competency ofJudge Sharswood.
No man, l suppose, will maintain that
Judge Sharswood, except that he was not
born In, or descended from Connecticut,
but is native of our own State, and that
he Is fifty six years old, and that he has
spent nearly one half of that time in the
able and honorable discharge of his high iu.
dicial functions, and is, at this time, ac-
knowledged to be at least equal to the lofti.
est judicial incumbent in this Common.
wealth. man, | suppose, will for a mo
ment pretend that there could be any com.
parlson between the rival candidates, not
that we disparGge Mr. Williams, but no man
with all ms opportunities and qualifications
could reasonably be expecleai 10 possess
those claims TO the office which are fully &C. |
corded to the accumulated learning and ap. |
proyal gilmore than twenty years. We have |
always been opposed to an elective Judicia |
ry. We have always been opposed to the |
new YORK limitation Of sixty years, by |
which Judge Kent and other eminent men |
were excluded from the bench. But when |
a Judge elected establishes his claims TO his |
post, by fidelity and competency, we are in
Iavor of retaining him in preference to ma.
king new experiment As to the differ,
ence between forty six and fifty six years of |
lge, our preference is for fifty six, as it i'm.
plies ten years additional experience.
The declaration in the platform of the
Convention that nomina-
Ted Judge WILLIAMS, that the Judici,
lry of the State must be placed in har-
nony with the sentiments Of the Radi.
cal party, elicits these comments from
Mr.. Brown:
The election of a Judge should have no
connection with party politics. He is to
'£, and MOTTO make the law, not to
'NPound 1t as partisan, not to legislate up.
'n legislation, not to favor the views of one
party or another in the discharge of his du.
les, not to consult programmes or platforms
IS Limiting or affecting his opinions but 10
lold himself aloof from all corrupt and cor,