Morning journal and courier., 1883-02-05
Monday, Feb. 5, 1888.
THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS TIRE CITY
 COURT.

THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS TIRE CITY COURT. Our courteous and also esteemed contem-
 porary the Pazzadiam published on Saturday
 an astonishing petition signed by certain
 members of the county caucus requesting
 Judge StudIey, ''for value recsived,' to ap- point MT. Rufus s. Pickett Prosecuting At
 torney. Our c. and E. contemporary did not give this petition its approval. Indeed, it opened small vial of wrath Cor vial of small wrath) upon the petition and it's sign
 CTS. At the same time it took occasion to say that the action of the petitioners is al- most as heinous an oEense as it is to advise Judge Stud1ey, as we had the temerity to do, not to appoint Mir. Pickett. We cordially agree with our c. and E. contemporary in it's disapproval of the pesition We cannot. at this moment, conceive of anything more brazen than such petition. unless 1t be the assump- tion of the c. and E. that Judge Studley's appointments are improper subjects for pub Iic discussion. We say public discus B. means anything else, for while it is vigor- ously denouncing all public discussion of Judge Studley's appointments some of those most interested in it's welfare are reported to be vigorously discussing these appointments with him in private. We find no fault with these discussions so far as they are confined, as we have faith to believe they all are, to disinterested advice; for although we thiuk highly of Judge studley we have never assumed that the City court is the one institution of this land of liberty that is above discussion by the press or suggestion from the people. We think 1t almost as pro- per to discuss the appointments of Judge Studley as it is to discuss these of the Gov ernor or the President, and we see nothing in such discussion that ought to offend even such pattern of courtesy and pink of pro priety as the c. and E. We advised Judge StudIey not to reappoint MT. Pickett. We have not noticed that the c. and E. has thus far ventured to question the soundness of this advice, but it has professed to be highly displeased because we advised him at all. If the Judge is as infallible ss the 0. and E. insists that he is good advice can do him no harm, and the oficious sensitivensss of the c. and E. is anything but complimentary, and quite unaccountabls unless it is the re- suit of secret fear that Judge StudIey may take the same view of MT. Pickett's reap pointment that we do.
 word more about the petition to which we have alluded above, in which certain members of the caucus which nominated Judge Studley openly demand, because they have made him Judge, that he re appoint Mir. Pickett. It would be good thing to start museum of political curiosities with. We skould like to know the statesman who drafted it. It was evidently some one who is intimately acquainted with each and all of the virtues of the present City Attorney, and who does not underestimate their beauty, power and value. We will not go so far as to say that the only individual who could truth fully have written it is MT. Pickett himself but we do feel safe in saying that it cenld not have been circulated without his know1- edge and approval. A candidate who would attempt. or connive at an attempt to infiu- ence judge by such means .te appoint him could not take more effective way to com pletely demonstrate his unitness for the office sought.
 Again we remind our courteous and es- teemed contemporary that it protests too much. If Judge Studley is really beyond the need of good advice; if public opinion, or the individual opinions that make public opinion, are worth nothing to him, and if he can do no wrong, he is rather incongruously situated. He would feel more at home among |" the spirits of just men made perfect"