The comet., 1881-06-11
L. q. W. ON STANLEY MATTHEW'S.

Mr.. L.. q. Washington, resident cor
respondent at Washington for quite
a number Of Southern papers, among
them the Courier journal; a gentle
man Of high standing and influence
In his native State, Virginia, and one
among the few newspaper correspon-
dents who have the ear and conf
dence of the public men from the
South, writes the following to the
Courier-J Journal relative to the con-
firmation Of Stanley Matthews:
He has been subjected to a cruel
fire of persecution, but he is man of
as much personal character as any
man, even the best of his assailents.
l should rank him far above Mr.. Ed
munds and Mr.. David Davis, who
were the busiest bodies IN trying to
effect his rejection. The pretence that
because his talents and learning as an
advocate have secured him employ
ment in courts, he is, therefore, 10 be
distrusted, is the drivel of idiots or
knaves. Nor is the opposition to him
based upon his vote against the So
called Thurman bill, entitled to any
more respectful consideration. 1t was
question for an honest difference of
opinion, and good men did honestly
differ upon it. The opinion of such
jurists asAIatthews, Ben. Hill, Stephen
j. Field In the very prime of their in
tellectual faculties, is as weighty as
that of the Senate lawyers, who have
answered them, not with argument,
but with an impotent malice. Mr..
Matthews is a Republican, and it is
very wrong for the President to con-
fine his appointments to the Repub-
lican party, but what Republican is
more liberal and broader than Mr..
Matthews, or more free from the
greed, malice and persecution which
have generally characterized their
leaders. If | had my choice, of all
the Republicans in the land whose
course upon the bench | should hope
and expect would help to reserve it
from partisan rancor and narrowness,
from consolidation tendencies and
overthrow of the Constitutional land
marks, and from the prosecuting
spirit it has evinced towards the
Southern Safes, L should unhesita-
tingly select Mr.. Matthews.
1t was not strange, therefore, that
majority Of the Democratic Senators,
and those the ab!est and wisest of the
body, should have voted for Mr.. Mat
thews' confirmation. He received the
votes of such men as Lamar, Ransom,
Brown, Hill, Jonas, Jackson, Beck,
Voorhees,, Pendleton, Mcpherson, But
Ter, Hampton, Call and Jones, of Flor
ida; Messrs Williams, of Kentucky,
Grover, of Oregon, and Farley, of
Nevada. Three of the truest and
most sagacious Democrats of the
Chamber were paired in favor of Mat
thews. Out of the minority of the
Democratic Senators who voted against
Mr.. Matthews four or five Senators
voted very reluctantly under the pres
sure of friends, and, rs / know, would
have voted against reconsideration.
They know, as does every one here ac-
quainted with the situation, that To |
reject Mr.. Matthews would be TO lose
the chance Of getting a liberal man |
on the bench, and end beyond a doubt |
in the inflicting upon us Of some ma
lignant, cruel partisan like Edmunds |
or Devens. 1t is fortunate, therefore,
that the Democrats confirmed Mat |
thews. A majority of the Republi-
cans voted against him. They want
ed thorough-going party man, and |
Matthews did not fill their bill. ! |
may add that all the active friends |
Of Mr.. Matthews i'm securing his con-
firmation were Democrats, and Demo-
Gratis, too, whose party fidelity is be-
yond all question.