Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-10-28
NEW ADVERTISEMENTS.
JUDGE SULLIVAN.
Facts Connected with bis Candidacy.
Method of Securing Nomination, and
Interested Supporters. and of
Running Campaign.
NEW ADVERTISEMENTS.
THE Argonaut, october $50.


Running a Campaign.
THE Argonaut October DO
VIDITOR OF THE ARGONAUT: The candi-
La dacy of Judge jeremiah Sullivan for the
office of Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
is certainly remarkable when we consider the
causes which led to his nomination and the
means which are being used to secure his cleo
ton. His connection with the notorious Sharon
case has been the main stepping stone to his
nomination by the Democratic party. He GER
tainly would not have been a formidable candi-
date for the nomination if he had not rendered
the decision in that case. Yet because of that
decision. some influence connected with it,
he was nominated over the heads of men more
learned and able and with much greater eXpe-
rience than himself. 1t is interesting to follow
the causes which led to this nomination and
their connection with the Sharon case. During
the early part of the history of this case George
| W. Tyler championed the plaintiffs cause. and
was her sole legal adviser, conducting for his
client this celebrated litigation in its many com
| plications, civil and criminal before the State
| and United States Courts. 1t was not until the
divorce case had been transferred from Judge
Finn 10 Judge Sullivan for trial that additional
counsel ere brought i'll to aid the plaintiff Then
| there were secured from time to time to assist
Tyler, no less than five additional counsel and,
what is most remarkable about the selection of
| these additional counsel is that they were all
Democrats, and some of them the leading poll
| ticians of that party in this state. First came
Judge Terry, a most influential Democratic poll
| tican; then Colonel Flournoy, another leading
| Democrat, with his partner, Mhoon, also Dem
ocrat; then Walter H. Levy, prominent local
| politician, who now holds judicial position
secured through his political influence; and
last, but not least, W. W. Foote, reputed leader
among the Democratic politicians of the State,
! holding the important Office of Railroad Com
missioner.
Why did Tyler. the shrewd and cunning law
| yer select all of his assistance from lawyers
who were members of the same political party
| with Judge Sullivan? Why did he select every
| time not only Democrat, but leading poll
| tician of that party? Tyler was Republican.
| If he wanted simply good lawyer, why did he
overlook the lawyers OF his own political faith
| And even if he preferred Democratic lawyers,
why did he pass by sucu men as Hall McAllister,
Samuel Wilson and John CARRIER, who are DEM
ocrats. but at the same time greater lawyers
| than politicians?
| Tyler collected as much political sagacity and
| influence as any five LAWYERS could contain.
| Five greater lawyers might easily have been
selected, but certainly not five greater lawyer
| politicians of leading influence i'll the Demo
cratic party. These lawyers were selected from
different parts of the State. Terry strong
| i'll San Joaquin Fresno and Tularc counties.
| Foote and Mhoon were strong in Alameda
county and in the State generally. as also
| Flournoy. Levy was an excellent political
manager III San Francisco in with the mac hine
and the boys generally. 1t is evident that this
selection of lawyers was not made with view
Sl10Dly 10 local III san IL
was made with a view to securing the political
services and influence of these lawyers in some
wider field. Had Judge Sullivan decided the
Sharon case against this battalion OF Democratic
lawyers, his political judicial career would not
have reached its present hourishing growth.
Had such decision been made it is hard to
conjecture the fate OF Judge Sullivan, when
we think for moment of the fierce
onslaught made by these lawyers upon
the Judges OF the Supreme Court for simply
deciding that Sharon had the right to appeal
from Judge Sullivan's decision. Not only did
these lawyers scandalously abuse and traduce
the supreme Judges for their decision, but Judge
Terry went before the late special session of the
Legislature and endeavored to remove the en-
tire Court, and, failing in This, endeavored to
remove two of those Judges who had decided
against him, made complaint against them
charging physical ard mental incompetency,
which charge was investigated by the Legisla-
tuTe and declared without foundation. We may
well inquire, What would have become of Judge
Sullivan had his decision been adverse TO these
lawyers, who did not hesitate to attempt the
destruction of the six Supreme Judges whose
only oflense was in holding that they had the
right to hear the appeal taken by Sharon from
Judge Sullivan's deciSion2
But Judge Sullivan did not incur the displeas-
Ure of these political lawyers. On the contrary.
he directed that Sharon pay TO their client
twenty five hundred dollars per month for ker
support, and awarded to these lawyers htty-tive
thousand dollars preliminary fee in the
great litigation that had only fairly begun.
And accordingly we find each one OF these Dem
ocratic lawyers exercising to the utmost his
political influence to elevate Judge Sullivan to
the Supreme bench, and this at d time when the
Sharon case was pending before him upon the
motion for new trial. These lawyers appear
in force among the delegates OF the state Demo
cratic Convention, in close companionship and
firm political alliance with Judge Sullivan.
Together they urged by every art and practice
of the modern politician, the nomination of
Judge Sullivan. This candidate for high judi
cial honors opened his political headquarters
during the Convention at one of the hotels of
this city. Here delegates were entertained and
votes traded in favor of Judge Sullivan. Hemar-
shaled in person his forces, assisted by the tdir
plaintiff in the Sharon case and her retinue of
Democratic lawyers No such spectacle was ever
presented in this State. Here was Superior
Judge, before whom great case was pending
upon motion for new trial, seeking a nomina-
ton for the Supreme bench, with the assistance
of one of the parties to this case and her
lawyers, who had already made open war upon
Judges of the Supreme Court for an adverse de-
cision made in the same case They were openly
exercising their power to reward the Judge who
had already given favorable decision but
who still had the power and discretion to set
aside that decision and require their client to
present anew her case for a reinvestigation.
These lawyers had already shown their de-
termination TO destroy the Judges OF the SUI
preme Court for staying the immediate execu-
ton of Judge Sullivan's judgment requiring
payment of sixty thousand dollars aiimony and
counsel fees. Judge Sullivan, well knowing
these facts. joins forces with the litigant in his
rich prize of place upon the Supreme bench
of the State.
Would it not be strong evidence of bribery if
these LAWYERS were to give Judge Sullivan the
amount of one year salary upon the Supreme
beach What shall we call it when they offer
him thetwelve years term in that high position,
with all its honors and emoluments? What
would be said of Supervisor who would make
a political alliance for his own advancement
with parties interested in a decision to be made
by the Board of which he is a member? Would
yet il is said that Judge Sullivan is an honest
man. that he will not accept bride, because he
decided 4 case against rich man. Have rich
nell only the power 10 bride Judges? Can not
those who can give or take away what is more
valuable than money, commit the ohfense of
bribery? After Judge Sullivan had secured the
coyeted nomination for Supreme Judge through
the assistance of this litigant and her
denying the defendants motion for new trial.
Was this surprising? Would it not have been most
surprising had Judge Sullivan found it his duty
to grant q new trial of the great case And is
1t possible for any one TO contend that Judge
Sullivan before making this decision did not al
low himself to become subject to influences
more persuasive than gold or silver could offer?
What more appears in this canvass for the Su-
preme Judgeship? We viii pass over the details
of how Foote and Mhoon voted the Alameda
delegation of twenty-iour votes for Judge Sulli-
van, notwithstanding the fact that these votes
were pledged in favor Of Judge Mckee and,
also, how Judge Terry secured and voted the
delegations of San Joaquin and Fresno counties
in favor of Judge Sullivan; and, also, the gen
eral activity of Terry, Mhoon, Flourney, Footc,
and Levy in the Convention and in the lobby in
favor Of Judge Sullivan candidacy.
1t was not enough for these leading Demo
cratic lawyers. having personal interest in the
success Of Judge Sullivan, to combine all their
forces il his favor; something more was needed,
and accordingly we have the spectacle of a
candidate for the Supreme Bench using the
church OF which he is an active member 10 Sc
cure him votes in the nominating Convention.
As evidence Of this, there were seen upon the
floor of the Convention a number of priests in
this church, who exercised manifest influence
upon the members OF their church who were ,
delegates III the Convention We need not give
a pen-picture of how these priests moved
among the delegates, gave them instructions,
and how the hall was packed with q crowd Of