The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1868-10-08
CITY INTELLIGENCE.
THOMPSON.
The Chief Justice Responds to Judge
Reads Protest.


Reads Protest.
Chief Justice Thompson has written the fol-
lowing letter, in response to the protest made
by Judge Read in regard to naturalization IN
the Supreme Court, published by US Yesterday:
PHILADELPHIA, Oct. z, lS6S,-Hon. John Al.
Read-Dear SlI:-Your letter dated this day has
been received by me, but the business of the
Court (Nisi Prius) has prevented my consider
ing Its contents as fully rs l may heteafter do,
If find 1t 10 be part of my official duty to do
so. There are some things, however, which it
discloses very distinctly, and which surprise me
much.
The first of these is that, without consultation
with me, the official organ OF the Court, you
should OF your own motion have convoked for
consultation Mr. Justice Agnew and Judge Will
lams in regard to the business of the Supreme
Court, and that there should have been con-
sultatlon held in relation to Its business with
out any notice 10 either Justice Sharswood or
myself, or any opportunity given for either to be
present. l think it might have struck YOU that,
if the meeting of Judges composing the Supreme
Court was to be OF any consequence, or to have
any significance whatever, we should have had
the opportunity, at least, of being present. Ii
any change of the practice in granting naturali-
zation papers from what has been sanctioned
by your own practice, as fully as that OF any
other of the Judges, was contemplated, we
should have had the benefit OF your views on
The point, and an opportunity to express ours,
if we desired to do so. 1t seems to me this
would have been both reasonable and proper.
am more surprised however, at the expires.
sion of an Ia-judlcial opinion by yourself,
and which you say was also expressed by Justice
Agnew and Judge Wllloms, not yet Judge of
the Supreme Court, in regard to what might
peibaps bt come the subject OF judicial action in
the Court hereafter. | think you will hardly
differ with me in the opinion, that any pre-
judgment expressed must disqualiiy Judge
| expressing it from sitting at the hearing of any
case in which the subject OF 1t may come in
controversy. 1t will be no excuse for judges
| expressing opinions that they were not fully
| apprised of the facts of the case of which they
| undertake to speak. This, let me suggest, would
| be good reason for retaining from expressing
| extra judicial opinions; but If expressed, 1t
would not avail to qualify the Judge to act, if a
| case should happen to come before him in due
ard leg al foInl, involving the same question.
| This remark is general, but you cannot doubt
| its applicability, think, 10 what is SAID by you
| about the practice observed in raturalzalions
! at MIS- Prius.
You request me to read your letter in open
| court | cannot do this. 1t Is in no way con-
pected with anything before me- either as mat
ter of testimony or matter OF law. Besides, |
must decline publishing any eXtra.judicial
opinions OF any OF my brethren, especially so as
| Mr.. Justice Aenew is absent, although your
| letter gives me to understand that he is OF tue
sane opinion with yourself, and that he Will
| repeat that opinion at any time hereafter. Nor
| can / think OF committing Judge Williams to
the pledge you make, that he will repeat the
opinion you express as soon as, or whenever, be
seail S, be sworn as as Judge OF the supreme I'm
Court of Nisi Prius in, naturalizing aliens
are void, although you do not pretend that
the Court was not legally constituted and
legally acting. Excuse me for entertaining
the belief that there is some mistake about
this advance opinion OF Judge Williams
-as well as that OF Judge -Agnew--On sc
grave subject as that to which you refer; but
if should be mistaken, they must themselves
give them 10 the public; they cannot come
through me, If there indeed were any eroundi
OF complaint that applicants for DECENTRALIZATION