The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1881-06-14
written for The Spirit of Democracy
Was the Confirmation OF Matthews
an O1fenSe Against the Dem.
Ocratfe Party?
An Attempt to Answer the Ques-
ttOn Fairly.
WASHINGTON CIrY, June 6, 1881

EDITOR OF the Spirit Of Democracy:
The nomination and confirmation of
STANLEY MATTHEWS to seat on the Su-
'reme Bench was displeasing to many OF
10, and With some there was disposi-
lon to visit that dispieasure upon oil
sho contributed to it. His Eame has
,een recently 50 conspicuously and
luestionably associated with important
vents as to make his prom otion to a
ligh judicial position little unpalata-
Die.
But before denouncing indiscriminate-
y all who aided or acquie seed in that
promotion let Us be quite sure that our
censure is just.
As to Mr.. Mathews eminent abili-
ties, his high legal, moral and social
standing, no question is raised-these
being Ill freely conceded.
But
Mr.. MATHEWS aided in putting Mr.
HAYES in the Presidential chair, place
to which he was not entitled;
And
Mr.. MATTHEWS opposed 'THURMANs
great Pacific Railroad bill, whence it is
inferred that Mr.. MATHEWS sides with
the monopolists.
Now let us see jnst how much or how
little there may be in these objections
which should influence Democratic Sen
ators to vote against the condr nation OF
Mr.. MATTHEWS.
First then as to his
PARTICIPATION IN THE ''aaEAr FRAUD"
In all this broad land there is proba
bly, not a Republican lawyer Of suH ;ient
prominence to be thought Of in c)unex-
ion with the Supreme Bench who did not
give at least his moral support to this
act. II they each or any failed to give
more active aid 1t Was solely for lack Of
opportunity. Upon this measure, there
fore, they we're all upon exactly the sane
moral level.
Furthermore, II an exception to this
class c)uli have b.en founi his nomina-
ton would not have been entertained for
one moment by any Republican Presi-
dent.
tits therefore perfectly obviou, that
to reject MATHEWS on this groan I
would only be to assure the nomination
Of another open to the same objection.
II ninety and nine had baen rejected,
the hundredth would have been not a
whit better in this respect.
The conclusion is irresistible thas
whatever responsibility attaches for pro-
noting one who WAS wrong on the ques-
toned title to the Presidency belongs to
the appointing and not to the confirming
power.
Moreover, the four Seustors-three o.
them Democrats and one Republican
from the so-called "stolen States" al
voted for the confirmation ,.of Mr.. NAT
7HEws.
On this point, then. the cause for muir
muring against our Senator seems to b.
very slight indeed.
he OPPOSED TIE THURMAN BILL
which was designed to bring the Pacific
railroads to an accounting, and compe
them to begin preparations for paying
the enormous Gums owed by thom to tht
government. The obj.cs was right
eous one-one 10 which tbs people had
a greater pecuniary interest than in any
Of the fi.cal affairs Of the governmsn
except the National debt.
Mr.. MATHEWS opposed it with grea
power in the Sinate, not b.cause its OBJ
jects we're Objectionable to him, but be
cause iu his opinion tho means employ
ed we're not warranted by the Constitu
tion. His grounds Of opposition ar,
thus stated by himself, in his opening
speech against IL:
"Mr. President, propose to discus
L r. sn1x sa aoonAfta1 m
question il it be not the main questio
for the consideration OF the Senate, fo
I attack the bill proposed by the Judi
ciary Committee OF the Senate on th
ground that it is an invasion OF the righ
Of property anil Of contract, that it j
not competent for the government Q
the United States consistently with th
Constitutional C principles according t
which it's action ought to be guided,
pass any such act"
Here let me- remsrk, incidentally, tha
is q little embarrassing for an old
fashioned Democrat like myself to quar-
rel with msn for strictly construin:
the COnStltutlOn.
The whole discussion on shat bill i
now before me in volumes 2 and 3, sec
ond session OF the 45th Congress.
have searched through it In vain for
sentence or word which would warran
the suspicion that Mr.. MATTHEWS ha
any other objection to tn. bill than th
constitutional one.
j This objection was not captious ont
The Judiciary Committee Of the Senat
were employed for weeks in lsboring t
get all the provisions OF the bill insid
the limits Of the Constitution; major
ity of the committee thought they snc
ceeded; a bare majority of the Suprem
Court thought the same way. Mr.. MAT
rHEws thought differently, ani 8
strongly did he present his views tha
one of the very prominent lawyers !
the Senate who had intended to supper
the bill, after hearing Mr.. MATTHEWS
speech, went to Mr. THURMAN and frank
ly told him that constitutional scruple
would compel him to vote against it,
This Senator subsequently, made legs
argument against the bill which man