Clarksville weekly chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1873-1890, 1877-02-24
TENN, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY "a. 1877.


and effect putting the decision of thi,
whole matter upon chance. If this bt
true, never was fact so humiliatins
to the Republic expressed since it was
inaugurated. OF the members of oul
| National Assembly, wisest and best
selected for the gravest judicial duty
! ever imposed upon man, under the
constraint of this solemn oath can
there be found in all this Sodom not
ten. not one, to obey any other man.
date but that of party.
"But 1 especially repudiate this i'm
putation when it rests upon those mem
bers of the Commission who are to
come from the Supreme Court. It is
! true there is a possibility of bias aris-
ing from old political opinions even
there, and this, however minute, the
bill seeks to place in exact equilibri-
um. But this small inclination, if any,
will in my judgment be overweighted
hundred fold by the bias pressing
them to preserve the dignity, honor,
and weight of their judicial office be-
fore their countrymen and before pos
terity. They will not consent by a
party division to have themselves or
their court go down in history as inca
pable of the judicial function in the
presence of the disturbing elements of
partisan desire for power, in regard to
the greatest cause ever brought into
judgment"
1t is bootless to ask how the expec-
tations of Judge Thurman, or how the
4R i.
and Hoar have been fulfilled. 1t is
only necessary to remember how Ed
munds and Hoar themselves have act
ed. Ii, besides these general and. as
it turns out, false and hypocritical pro-
fessions on the part of the Radicals,
there was anything like distinct un-
derstanding among the members of the
committee who framed and advocated
the bill, that it did provide for the in
PRODUCTION of evidence ''dliunde the
papers opened by the President of the
Senate then the faith Of a Radi-
cal will become by-word for years
to come. Bad as they may be, Nor
ton and Garfield, at least, are free
from this imputation of punic faith.
Their opposition to the bill was open,
undisguised, and consistent from the
first. They were appointed on the
Commission as partisans. not as judges
and they took the oath upon which
Judge Edmunds lays so much stress
well-tbey took it! With their con-
sciences we have no concern. When
the bill was first debated in the Sen
ate Senator Dawes, it will be remem-
bered, was nightly exercised about
the phraseology of the bill, and partic-
ularlY about the clause relating to the
admission of testimony. Nobody took
much notice of Dawes. None of his
Republican friends seemed to trouble
themselves to quiet his anxious doubts
and fears; only, before the debate
closed, Dawes asked leave to withdraw
his amendment, and voted for the bill.
Had Dawes private assurance that the
words in the bill meant nothing-that
they were only decoys to catch Demo
crats-and that when the Commission
met all testimony of the kind referred
to in the bill would be vigorously ex-
cluded? Our own objections to the
bill were fully and earnestly stated at
the time. We never trusted it, nor
the tribunal which it created. At the
same time we can sympathize with the
honest indignation Of those who did
trust it, and whose confidence unwor-
thily won has been still more unwor-
thily abused. Was the whole scheme
a trick from the beginning-and were
the professions of those members of
the Commission, who were also among
the trainers of the bill, of an intention
to act mot as partsans, but judges"
merely intended to hoodwink and de-
ceive?