The New York herald., 1877-09-06
JUSTICE BRADLEY's DENIAL.

Justice Bradley. OF tho United States Supreme
Court has sent the following letter to the editor Of the
Newark Adrertiser:-
srowE. w., Sept 9, 1877.
To TUE EDITOR OF THE ADVERTISER
l perceive that the New York Sun has reiterated
its cnarge that after preparing written opinion
case. submitted to tho Electoral Commission,
changed my views during the night preceding the
vote in consequence Of pressure brought to bear upon
by republican polt icans aud Pacific Railroad men,
whose carriages, Is is sad surrounded my house cur
ing the evening. This, | believe, IS tho imporan.
point Of The charge Whether wrote one opinion or
twenty in my private examination OF the SUD-
Ject is OF little consequence and OF no con.
Germ TO anybody II tho oplnion which finally
gave was the iar result OF my deliberations,
without influence from outside parties. The above
slander was published some time since, but never
II until reccntlv and deemed II too absurd 10
need rcts;on. But as Is catcgorcay repeated per
hnps ought TO notice It, The same story about car
riages Of leading republicans and others coDgrcgatns
my house was circulated in Washington at tue
time and came to the ears OF my family only to ralso
hood. Not single visitor called at my house that
evening; and during the whole sitting of ihe Commis
sion had no private discussion Whatever OF tue SUP
Jecs at with any person Interested on tue repuo-
lcan side, and but very few words with any pcrson.
Indeed, sedulously sought 10 avoid all discussion
outside tho Commission ITSELF Tho allegation % %.nas
l read opinion TO Judges Clifford and ficid
Is entirely untrue. read no opinion 10
pressing any. If I did, It could only have been
suggcstlvely or In hypothetical manner anu hot
intended MS commit,al Of my final ludgmon. or
tance, and, 10 me, Of much difficulty and en'oar-
rassmcnt. earnestly eDdeavored TO come 70 u
right decision, free from all political or other OK.
traneous considerations In my private examina.
ton Of tho principal question tAbout going bcninu
tho returEs) | wrote and rcwrotc the arguments
and considerations on both sides as they occurred
to mo, sometimes bong inclined to one view oi INC
subject and sometimes to the other But nnaiiy
thew aside these ucubratons, and as you nave
rightly stated wrote out tho short op'nion which reu
In tho Forida during tho sitting OF the Commis
sion. This opinion expresses the honest conclusion
which had arrived. and which, aiter
a full consideration oil the whole suolec',
seemed to me tho only satisfactory solution o the
question. And may add that the moro have re-
iiccted on 1t since the more satisfied have become
that II rignt AZ all events 1t was the result o
my own reflections and consideration. without any
suggestions from any quarter except the arguments
adduccd by counsel In tho public discussion ana py
the members OF the Commission In its private con
situations.
AS for the tnsnuation contained In recent article
published in a prominent periodical by u noted
politician, Implying that The case was decided IN
consequence Of political conspiracy, cah only
say (nnd from tho peculiar position occupied on
the Commission am able positively to suy) that u
Is utterly devoid OF truth, at least lar rs the nc.
tion Commission itself was concerned. n thnC
artlcie couples my name with the names oi
those whom no supposes obnoxious TO public odium
The decencles Of puOlic cxpresslon Il Lohng more,
might we'll have deferred able writer from making
personal ipu,aons which he did not know to be well
rounded. Yours, respectfully,
JOSEPH p. BRADLEY.