Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1871-01-19
JOHN L. It. sNEED.
HoN. LoRnAN sroKEs, LETTER

HON JORDAN STOKES LETTER.
NASHVILLE, December 20, ls70.-
Hy Dear Brother.
Judge SDesd addressed me the in
closed letter, and promised t0sinclOse
it to you, but / supposed you would
be very much engaged at the begin
ming of the session, and hence did not
tFansmitit. 1t Is perhaps unnecessary
for me To accompany Judge s IS letter
with any comments Of mine. I have
known Judge 5. for many years, and
am fully satisfied that his letter con-
tains a sincere and candid detail Of
his motive in accepting the position
of Supreme Court Judge, and entering
upon his duties before being relieved
from his disabilities. Ii is difficult TO
conceive Of a period in the history OF
any State when it would more impe-
riOusly demand a permanent judiCia-
~, and DO system of administering
the laws can be effective without a
permanent Supreme Court.
I sincerely hope that il viii be con-
sistent with your sense Of public duty
tU give Judge S. the benefit of your
name and influence in having his dis
abilities removed. Please let me hear
from you as 10 the prospect Of getting
Judge SIS application through Con-
gress.
Your brother, JORDAN STOKES.
GENERAL W. b. STOKES REPLY.
WASHINGTON, January ), IS7I.-5ly
Dear ByOtber-NOUr favor OF the 10Th
Ult., iuclOsiHg General Sneed's letter,
is received. In reply will state that
before the election of Supreme Judges
in Tennessee last August, 1 was de-
cidedly in favor Of relieving all men
Of their legal and political disabilities
who would apply fOr.the same. Gen
eral Sneed was here near the close of
the session in July last, and seemed
very anxious TO get his disabilities
removed. i was in favor Of its being
done, and 50 expressed myself to him,
for we bad been for many years pOlit-
ical as well as personal friends. He
certainly must have considered him
self labOring under disabilities, or why
would he petition to be relieved? Yet
when he came TO enter upon the dis
charge Of the duties Of Supreme Judge,
he had no scruples as 70 taking the
oath of office. At least he did take it.
He further says he does not wish
to Gtigate such a question with the
Government. Then 1 ask, why did
he deliberately violate the COnstitu-
ton and the laws Of the land? Tia my
Judgment, il was his duty % have
peremp ptOTily refused to exercise the
functions OF the office until relieved.
It would certainly have been better
for him, and I am sure the country
would not have been WOrsted. It ap-
pears TO noe that Il would have been
Infinitely better to have had no court
than TO have had one composed OF
men who are cOnstituti Onally dis
qualified; whose decisions are q0es-
tiOnable, il not utterly void. But AZ
Ter a man has gone on and taken the
oath Of Office, and is exercising the
functions Of the same In direct viola
ton gf the Federal Constitution and
in defiance Of the laws Of the land,
and now under indictment in the
Federal Court, for one, / cannot give
my consent to have him relieved, IN
til he has satisfied the demands Of the
Court. If he proves himself innocent,
then he viii need no relief from Con-
gress; but If. on the contrary, he
should be convicted, then he viii
need a pardon from the Executive,
and also an act Of Congress for his re-
lief; then / could very properly come
to his assistance. But at present do
not wish to interfere with the action
ofthe Court or the Grand Jury.
II General SReed knew he was dis
qualified, then he is unfit TO be a
Judge OF any court; if, on the other
hand, hepleads ignorance, that ought
70 render him unfit. Let him choose
either horn Of the dilemma and he
stands condemned. I agree with YOU
that we ought to have a permanent
Judiciary, and but for such men as
compose the present Supreme Court.
We would have had il. Ia fact We
did hsYe it in the person Of Hawkins,