The new North-west. [volume] (Deer Lodge, Mont.) 1869-1897, 1877-09-21
Mr.. JUSTICE BEAD1EYs DEFENSE.
He May Have Written Several Arguments
but Only One Opinion.
Letter to Newark Advertiser.

Letter to Newark Advertiser.
STOWE, Vt, September 2.
perceive that the New York Sun ha
reiterated its charge that after preparing ;
written opinion in favor of the Tilden elect
ors in the Florida case, submitted to thu
electoral commission, I changed my views
during the night preceding the vote in CON
sequence of pressure brought to bear upon
me by Republican politicians and Pacific
Railroad men, whose carriages it is said,
surrounded my house during the evening.
This, believe, is the important point oi
the charge. Whether wrote one opinion
or twenty in my private examination of the
| subject is of little consequedce and of no
concern to anybody, if the opinion which /
| finally gave was the fair result of my de-
atss~.s--s>-4 a.
parties. The above SANDER was published
some time since, but never saw it until
recently, and deemed it to absurd to need
refutation. But as it is categorically re-
peated, perhaps ought to notice it. The
same story about carriages of leading Re-
publicans and others congregating at my
house was circulated in Washington at
the time, and came to the ears of my family,
only to raise smile of contempt. The
whole thing is falsehood. Not q single
visitor called at my house during that
evening, and during the whole sitting Of
the commission had no private dicussion
whatever of the subjects at issue with any
person interested ON the Republican side
and but very few words with any person.
Indeed, sedulously sought to avoid all
discussion outside the commission. The
allegation that 1 read an opinion to Judges
Clifford and Field is entirely untrue. /
read no opinion to either of them, and have
no recollection Of expressing any. If l
did, it could only have been suggestiyely
or in hypothetical manner, and not IN
tended as a committal of my final judg-
ment or action. The question was one of
grave Importance, and to me of much diff
ficrlty and embarrassment. I earnestly
endeavored to come to right decision free
from all political or other extraneous. In
my private examination of the principal
question (about going behind the returns)
wrote and rewrote the arguments and
considerations on both sides as they occur
red to me, sometimes being inclined to one
view of the subject and sometimes to the
other. But finally I threw aside these lu-
cubrations, and, as you have rightly stated,
wrote out the short opinion which | read in
the Florida case during the sitting of the
commission. This opinion expresses the
hone st conclusion to which had arrived,
and which, after full consideration of the
whole subject, seemed to me the only salts
factory solution of the question. And
may add that the more have reflected on
it since the more satisfied have become
that il was right. At all events, it was the
result of my own reflections and considera-
tion, without any suggestions from any
quarter except the arguments adduced by
counsel IN the public discussion, and by
the members of the commission in it's pri-
vate consultations.
As for the insinuation contained in a re-
riodicalby noted politician, implying that
the case was decided in consequences of
political conspiracy, can only say (and
from the peculiar position I occupied On
the commission, I am able positively to
sayl that it is utterly devoid of truth, at
least so far as the action of the commission
itself was concerned. In that article the
writer couples my name with the names OF
those whom he supposes obnoxious to pub
lie odium. The decencies of public ex-
preston, if nothing more, might well have
deferred SO able writer from making per-
sonal imputations which he did not know
to be well founded.
Yours respectfully,
JOSEPH p. BRADLEY.