The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1877-09-13
JUSTICE BRADLEY.


Flat Denial of the New York SUMS
Charges.
Justice Joseph Bradley, of the United States
Supreme Court, has addressed the following
letter to the editor of the Newark IN. j.
AdUertiSeT:
STOWE, VT, Sept. g.
Editor of the Advertiser:
perceive that the New York SIN has reiter-
ated its charge that, after preparing written
opinion in favor Of the Tilden electors in the
Florida case submitted to the Electoral Com
mission, changed my views during the night
preceding the vote in consequence of pressure
brought to bear upon me by Republican poll
ticians and Pacific railroad men, whose car
riages, it is said, surrounded my house dur
ing the evening. This, believe, is the i'm
portant point of the charge. Whether I wrote
one opinion or twenty in my private
examination of the subject is of little conse-
quence, and of no concern to anybody, if the
opinion which | finally gave was the fair
result OF my delhi aratiOns without influence
from outside parties. The above Islander was
published some time since, but I never saw it
until recently, and deemed it too absurd to
need refutation but, as it is categorically re-
peated, perhaps l ought to notice it. The
same story about carriages Of leading Republi-
cans and others congregating at my house was
circulated in Washington at the time, and came
| to the ears Of my family only to raise a smile
of contempt. The whole thing is falsehood.
Not single visitor called at my house that
evening, and during the whole sitting of the
commission / had no private discussion what
ever of the subjects at issue with any person
interested on the Republican side, and but very
few words with any person. Indeed, I sedu-
lousy sought to avoid all discussion outside
| the commission itself. The allegation that I
read an opinion to Judges Clifford and Field
is entirely untrue. / read no opinion to
either of them, and have no recollection of ex-
pressing any. IT did, it could only have been
suggestively, or in hypothetical manner, and
not intended as committal of my final judg-
ment or action. The question was one of grave
Importance, and to me of much difficulty and
embarrassment. / earnestly endeavored tc
come to right decision free from all political
or other extraneous considerations. In my pri
vate examination of the principal question
(about going behind the returns) wrote anC
reWrote the arguments and considerations
on both sides as they occurred to me
sometimes being inclined to one view of the
subject and sometimes to the other But
finally, threw aside these lucubrations. and
as you have rightly stated, wrote out thu
short opinion which I read in the Florid;
case during the sitting of the commission
This opinion expresses the honest conclusion tx
which had arrived, and which, after a full
consideration of the whole subject, seemed tt
me the only satisfactory solution of the ques
ton, and may add that the more have re
fiected on it since the more satisfied have
become that it was right. At all events, it wa
the result of my own reflections and considera
ton without any suggestions from anv quarte
except the arguments adduced by counsel Of
the public discussion, and by members o
the commission in its private consultations
AS for the insinuation contained in
recent article published in a prominen
| periodical by noted politician implying tia
the case was decided in consequence of politics
conspiracy, can only say (and from the pecul
lar position I occupied on the commission al
! able positively to say that it is utterly deyoi