The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1867-09-26
Judge Williams.

JuuS6 w lIldllS.
In asking the people to vote for Judge
Williams for the position, which has been
more than once disgraccd by the show of
mere partizanship, on the part of Judge
Woodward, and to prevent repetition OF
the disgrace by the elevation of Judge
Sharswood with his Calhoon secession
proclivities, the republican party, while
seeking for candidate whose loyalty to
the country in its hour Of greatest need
was and is undoubted, has not been un-
mindful of the fact that ability, legal and
otherwise, is just as necessary to the
maintenance of the high respect gained
for the Supreme Court, by the honesty,
the patriotism, the talent, and the her
eulean legal ability of Chief Justice Glib
son and his compeers. Nor have they
been unsuccessful in this respect. On
shs contrary they have been eminently
successful, as the following facts fully in
every particular, sustained by the,.record,
will show. We affirm, therefore, without
fear of contradiction by the Record,
Ftst.-That Judge Williams has sat
in Jud dgemeut upon, and decided as many
important and intricate cases as Judge
Sharswood, or any other district Judge,
during the same term of service, iu the
State.
.Second-His opinions have met with
fewer reversals, upon appeal, than those
of Judge Sharswood, or any other District
Judge, during the same term Of service,
an the State.
Ihrd.-IIis opinions have been adop-
ted as the lar IN tie case, by the Su-
preme Court, more frequently than
those of Judge Sharswood, or any other
District Judge, during the same term of
service, in the State.
The following are few Of the cases
presenting new points, in which the Su-
rreme Court, affirmed the judgement for
the reasons given by Judge Williams in
the Court below
Crawford VS.. Murphy-1S53-10th
Harris, 81.
McClowry VS.. Croehan's Administra-
tors-1e56-1st Grant, 81. See how
this opinion is regarded by Woodward
Justice, in 5th Wright 213. We do not
lay much on Woodward's opinion, but re-
fer to it merely to show what Demo
cratic chief justice thinks of the legal a.
bility of a Black republican candidate for
the Supreme Bench.
Edgar, Administrator, VS.. Shields-1S-
56-1st Grant 36i-
Leonard's Executors vs. Winslow, La
nier & Co-1856-2nd Grant 130
Brown VS.. Lynn-1S58-7th Casey,
$40.
Campbell VS.. Lacock -1SG1- 4th
Wright.
Craft VS.. Flemipg-1s63- 10th Wright,
40.
Ilcu'lDS hr' IedusSJ lOOO- lDtD
Wright, 259.
Oakland Passenger Railway Company
VS.. Fielding-I664- 18th Wright, 320.
We might fill columns Of our paper
with the titles of cases in which Judge
Williams was fully sustained by the Su.
preme Court upon points before decided
and with other cases, decided upon con
stitutional grounds, and in which the
Judges reasoning was so plainly correct,
that Attorneys did not deem 10 worth
whilesto carry them farther. But We
forbear. Our object is to show the peo.
pie OF this section of the Commonwealth,
that as lawyer Judge Williams stands
inferior to none, and as Judge is with
out bis peer on the District Bench. In
the language of a cotemporary, "his nom
ination does credit to the integrity of the
party, and his election, will be tribute
to tie intelligence of the State.