New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-02-16
FROM WASHINGTON.

THE CHARGES AGAINST JUDGE FIELD.
With reference to the impeachment case
now before the House Judiciary Committee,
had occasion recently to examine into the
records of the general land office As ex
pected, found footprints OF the stately
steppings of Mr.. Justice Field in the form
of certain Geographic dispatches sent by
him to Joseph Wilson, the late commits
sioner. They were evidently intended to
warp and pervert the administration OF
public Justice. The necessary effect of the
kilograms sent to Mr.. Wilson would be, if
acted upon by him, disregard of the au-
thority of his superior, the Secretary OF the
Interior Department, and gross violation
of the law. The people have long suspected
that the corruption found to be pervading
so many of the departments of the fed
eral government has crept into its judicial
department, and but too often defeated the
ends of justice for the benefit of the rich
and the powerful. They know also that
the lawful remedy for the deprivation OF
constitutional right is to be had only
through the honest and conscientious ac-
ton of the judiciary, and that when they
lose confidence in the integrity OF the
courts their only resort then to right their
wrongs is by the strong hand OF revolution
When the judicial power of a government
reaches a hopeless state of corruption, the
overthrow of that government is inevita-
BILE, and speedily follows.
In view of the man and his position, tine
of Al Ind
Field seem to indicate one of the most high
handed and reckless transactions that we
remember to have heard of:
SAN Francisco, June %, 1867.
Joseph s. Wilson, Commissioner General Land
Office:
Don't understand your telegram. Have
relied upon your statements. What is the
ditficultyl Can not you list the lands with
out consulting Secretary! Answer.
STEPHEN j. FIELD.
SAN FRANCISCO, July ,. 1867.
Joseph s. Wilson, Commissioner General Land
Are not our selections good under State
warrants or the coal land laws! Parties
have been in possession nine years and ex-
| pended $47 900 on the property.
STEPHEN j. FIELD,
For kountz.
Here is Justice of the Supreme Court
| seeking to induce the chief of bureau in
one of the departments of government to
usurp the authority of his superior officer
! and to violate the law. Whether the effort
was made for the direct pecuniary benefit
of the Judge himself, or to promote the in
terests of his clients, we do not venture to
! saw, nor is it material. But certain we are
! that the documents are on file in the Gen
eral Land Office, and that certified copies,
under the seal of the department. are in
proper hands.
| CONTRADICTORY DECISIONS.
| SO much for the conduct of Judge Field.
A word now with respect to his official and
| public action. How can he reconcile his
dissenting opinion in the legal tender case
recently decided by the United States Sa-
preme Court and his decision in the case
of Glidden ct al against Nagle ct al. where
| the contract was payable in gold coin and
made after the passage Of the legal tender
act The .iud rnent of the district court
in California, following the contract, was
for gold coin. but was reversed by Judge
| Field. he at the same time holding that no
contract providing for the payment of gold
coin was valid, whether made before Or
after the passage of the legal tender act.
Once more. Has he the hardihood to at
tempt openly to reconcile the case of the
| schooner Ocean Spray VS.. Erlandsen ct al.
| This was an action brought last summer III
the United States District Court for the dis
trict of California to recover damages. In
this case the decision of the district court
ordering payment in legal tender notes was
reversed, and a new decree made by Judge
Field, as circuit Judge, for gold coin, and
then struggled through the United States
Supreme Court by means best known to the
Judge himself. How such decisions were
ever obtained in the Supreme Court of the
United States is question that may not a
little confound those who have such an
abiding faith in the integrity of that court
~ PRESIDENTS LOUISIANA POLICY.
| 1t is the current belief here that President
Grants good sense dictates to him the ne
cessity for removing the federal officers in
New Orleans, against whom charges have
been made, and whose corruption has be-
come so notorious. There is no foundation
whatever for the statement made by the
National Republican of the fourth instant
that the interests of the general govern,
ment are represented in that city Gin a
manner which does not fail to give general
satisfaction in Washington" On the con.
trary, it was the Presidents policy that
instigated the appointment of the congress
sional investigating committee, and his pur.
pose is by this means to justify himself in the
| ewes of the colored voters who are controlled
by the Customhouse faction for the removal
of their friends. We spoke above OF me
nessity." which means that the disgust oc
casioned not only here but throughout the
country, by the corruption OF federal
officials in New Orleans, calls, in hammer
not to be mistaken, for a speedy remedy
| Nor will President Grant, if he knows his
own good, longer wink at the infamy OF the
federal service there, notwithstanding he is
furnished with one of the strongest motives
that govern lnen-the advancement of fam
lily interest.
| TIE APPLICATION FOR TROOPS.
There has not as yet been given correct
account of the applications made to the
President for troops to preserve order dur
ing the recent troubles in New Orleans.
Shortly after the first application had been
of the House from Louisiana having once