The state chronicle. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1883-1893, 1886-08-06
DEMOCRAT No. ,.
The Rejected Letter.

The following letter Is the one sent to
the News Observer. 1t is from the pen of
an able lawyer-that will be evident to al
who read it. The CHRONICLE has never
yet refused to let all sides of every ques-
ton be heard That is its principle ''lct
there be light We therefore give place
to this letter -EDlTOR.
| have read with great interest the dis
cussion which has been carried on for
some considerable time through the col
umns Of your paper upon the subject Of
selecting Justices TO compose our Supreme
Court, and from now until the convention
meets | propose, with your permission,
to become 4 participant in this discussion.
| consider it 4 matter Of the greatest i'm
portance to North Carolina. Bad laws
We'll executed are preferable to good laws
badly executed. Our present Constitu
ton makes it our duty to select every eight
wears the Judges who are to compose our
Supreme Court. 1t would be impossible
to discharge this duty we'll, if it were in
advisable to have through the public prints
a free and full discussion of the merits
and demerits of the candidates for these
offices whether they be incumbents or not
When an incumbent is a candidate for re
election. his official acts III the past are
public property, and if there are any com
plants against those acts it. is very meet
and proper that they should be made
known To eXtol an officers virtues and
hide his faults would be crimnally unjust
to the public. But the discussion of the
merits and dement's of candidates, for the
office of Judge, should be conducted with
an eye single to the purpose of ascertain
ing what is the best for the public good.
The discussion should be open, free, frank
and candid, and, above all, it should be
based upon true facts and sound logic.
The lawyers are better posted than any
other class, as to the manner in which the
present incumbents have discharged the
duties of their office, and their probable
ability to discharge them hereafter, and
they owe it as duty to the public to
speak truly, openly, frankly and manly
without the fear of any consequences.
And if in the discharge Of this duty, "a
lawyer should prefer any complaints
against the present Justices and should
give good reasons therefor, it would be
not only a very poor, but very improper
answer, for the friends of the present JUS
tees. to say that he was actuated by the
selfish ''deSire to get some lawyer out of
his way or by what is worse, ''maliCe
engendered by having a case decided
against HIM SO, Mr. Editor, if you
should see fit to advocate through your
editorials, the retention of the present
Justices. and should give good reasons
therefor. it would be very poor and a
very improper answer for one OF the other
side to say that you are of hloodkln to one
of the present Justices, and that IN your
love for the man, you had forgotten the
solemn and sacred duty you owe TO the
public as the .'organ of the Democratic
party" These are not arguments, or
answers to arguments. They are child
ish appeals to the prejudices of the human
heart and should find no place in the dis
cussion of so important a subject.
The discussion thus far seems to have
been confined almost exclusively TO the
disability of two of the present members
of the court on account of their age-be-
ing as | unC erstand one II and the other
75 wears old, and | have hoped that the
di scussion would extend over no broader
ground, but the friends of the present in
cumbents have rendered such a course
impossible Letter after letter has appear
ed in print asserting in the most positive
manner that there were no complaints as
to the manner which the present incum-
bents have discharged the duties of their
office. We, who oppose the retention of
the court as it now stands, cannot longer
be silent on this subject. If the assertion
be true we owe it to ourselves to confess
it. If it be untrue, we owe 1t as duty to
the public to say so, and to give them the
complaints and the grounds thereof.
That there have been and are still com
plants made against the court, is fact