The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-10-06
Judge CIifRord's Decision.
PORTLAND, Oct. 3, 1876.

trict attorney, Hon. Bon Bfdd0ury, Hon,
Josiah II. DrunaD10nd:
GENTLEMEN:-You were, we believe, the
counsel in the case of Bradish johnson v. Neal
Dow, lately heard ia the Circuit Court for this
District Messrs. Rand and Bradbury Being for
the plaintiff, and Messrs. Drummond and
Webb for the defendant. You are aware, we
presume. that Mr.. Blaine, as represented in
the public journals, in his recent speech at
Warren, Ohio, spoke of this case as follows
(Here follow the remark $ of Mr.. Blaine, al
ready published)
Great Injustice has been done TO cur father,
Judge Clifford, by these statements, and we
believe them to be founded upon misapprehen
sion of the facts AS we understand the mat
ter the facts were these:
Dow was sued in the Sixth District Court Of
Louisiana by one johnson, claimining to be
loyal citizen of New York, and having been
duly served with process failed to appear, and
suffered judgment to go against him by de-
fault. The action N the Circuit Court in this
Circuit, was an action of debt on that iudg-
ment. Dow was duly served with process from
the Circuit Court here, and appeared and
pleaded several pleas:
First, That there was no such record, that is,
no such judgment against him.
Second, He also set up three special pleas,
denying the jurisdiction of the 9th District
Court of Louisiana.
The plaintiff replied to his first plea that
there was such a.record and produced duly
certified copy of the same The court here
both justices concurrng-found that there was
such a record CT the judgment In response
to the special pleas the plaintiff replied that
the 9th District Court of Louisiana had juris
diction OF the parties and the cause to render
judgment. To this the defendant, Dow, de-
INJURED and there was rejoinder in the demur-
rer.
The questions arising on the demurrer were
argued before Clifford j.. June a. 1874, sitting
alone, the other justices not being qualified to
sit. Judge Fox had formerly been of counsel
in the case and could not sit. Judge Shepley
having been governor of Louisiana at the time
the acts were done by Dow, thought himself
also disqualified to act in the case. Judge Cliff
ford held the case under advisement for some
tire, and finding that the questions on the
pleadings, and that OF jurisdiction, were both
involved in difficulty, was unwilling to render
judgment on the case which could not be re-
viewed by the Supreme Court at Washington,
He could have SO entered judgment, however,
and that decision would have been final and
conclusive between the parties, because the
amount in dispute was not sufficient to give
the Supreme Court jurisdiction, and to entitle
the case to 60 further by law. 1t could only 60
up in case of division of opinion.
Judge Clifford suggested to Judge Shepley
to appoint the District judge of New Hamp-
shire to sit in this District, and he, Judge
Clark. was then invited by Judge Clifford to
which was ordered by Judge Clifford in order
to the making up of certificate of division of
Oplnion.
The hearing was had before these two judges
at Portland, and they were both of opinion
that the case was proper one for a certificate
of division of opinion, in order that the case
might be heard before full court at Wash
ington. The laws of the Congress of the
United States do not permit such a certificate
of division of opinion until after final iudg-
ment; and, the Act of Congress makes 1t the
duty of the Supreme Court judge, who presides,
to render the judgment in the case.
The judge of the Supreme Court in this case
being of the opinion that it was proper that the
case should be carried forward by the party
against whom one Judgment had already been
rendered 10 the case, ard that too in the court
OF original jurisdiction, directed the judgment
in this circuit, which was the only way the case
could ever get to the Supreme Court of the
United States.
judgment of the highest national tribunal at
the earliest possible moment. The case was
important in some of its aspects, but was not
large enough to get to Washington without it
went in the manner described.
At the time the judgment was rendered
Judge Clifford stated to the counsel that he
would allow the writ of error to the Supreme
Court at any time in order to the decision of
the questions in the certificate of division.
Since that the writ of error and other docu-
ments have all been duly executed
We were not of counsel in the case, and of
course, cannot have the same full and accurate
knowledge of the facts as You possess Under
the circumstances, we appeal to you to know
whether the foregoing statement is correct, and
1t it contains any error we request you to rect-
fly the same. Very respectfully,
CHARLES e. CLIFFORD,
WILLIAM HENRY CLIFFORD,
GEORGE f. CLIFFORD.
Having argued the cause for the plaintiff on
both occasions, and being familiar with all the
facts and proceedings, / consider the foregoing
statement correct and | think it my duty to
add, that while Judge Clifford had the power
to make his own opinion final and conclusive,
his extreme anxiety that no injustice should
possibly be done, prompted him to call in Judge
Clark in order that SO important a question
might be re-examined at Washington.
October 8, 1876.
(SigEed,) JOHN RAND
PORTLAND, Oct 8, 1876
Messrs. Charles E. Clifford, Wns Henry Cyit-
ford and George r. Clifford
Gentlemen:-I have received your note con-
tanning statement of the case of johnson vs.
Dow, as presented at the hearing before the
Judges of the Circuit Court, and find it cor
by the spirit most wrongfully imputed to him
by MIR. Blaine, could have decided the cause
without calling upon Judge Clark to sit with
him; but deeming the questions involved deli
should be determined by the highest judicial
tribunal, and adopted the only course by which
that object could be attained
Very cordially.
(Signed.) BIoN BRADBURY.
have examined the foregoing, and find that
it contains correct statement of the facts.
The only questions presented to the Court were
whether the Louisiana Court had jurisdiction
of the defendant and of the subject matter of
the suit and could render a valid judgment
therein.
tSigned) JOSIAH Ell. DRUMMoND.
PORTLAND, Me-, Oct g. 1876.
MesSrs. Charles E. Clifford, VIM. II Clifford
and Geo. r. Clifford:
Dear Sirs-I have examined the statement
of the case of Bradish johnson v. Neal Dow,
contained in your letter to the several counsel
ford and Clark, at the Circuit Court on the 18th
OF September, and find it correct according to
my recollection of the facts
Very respectfully,
(Signed) NATHAN WEBB.
PORTLAND, Oct. 8, 1876
Hon. Ed,oard Fox, U. S. District Judge for
the District of Maine:
VIII you permit US to call your attention to a
letter addressed by US to John Rand, Hon.
Nathan Webb, Hon. Bion Bradbury, Hon.
Josiah Ell. Drummond, counsel in the late
case of johnson v. Dow, and to ask
of you whether the statement of facts of that
case contained in that letter, so far as the same
are within your knowledge, are correct.
If it is in any particular incorrect, will you
please point out the error.
Very respectfully.
CHARLES E CLIFFORD,
WILLIAM HENRY CLIFFORD.
GEORGE f. CLIFFORD.
PORTLAND, Oct 4, 1876.
Gentlemen:
was counsel for Gen. Dow in the case of
Bradish johnson against him, up to the time
of my appointment as District Judge of Maine.
have since watched the progress of the cause,
and have carefully examined the statement
referred to in your letter to Messrs. Rand, Webb
IL ais, and believe the same to be correct.
After the cause was submitted to Judge Cliff
ford, he very frequently stated to me that he
fOund il was attpndad with sariouo d;A3on1,;o,