New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-21
MIR. FULLER CHIEF JUSTICE.
HIS NOMINATION CONFIRMED BY THE
SENATE-41 TO 20.
TEN REPUBLICANS. HEADED by CULLoM AND
FARwELI. VOTE WITH THE DEMOCRATS
EyARrs EDMUNDS AND STEWART IN
THE NEGATIvE-H SENATOR'S
PAIRED. AND ONE ABSENT
THE PRESIDENT GREAT

spY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.

On tho Senate to-day confirmed the nomination
Of Melville W. Fuller of Illinois. to be Chief
Justice OF the United States. The continuation
OF Mr. Fuller was foregone conclusion. 1t was
foreshadowcd in these dispatches some time ago :
Of YOU decide to nominate Melville W. Fuller
will take the contract to secure his conlrma-
tom Senator Farwell said to the President when
the Inter was as yet hesitating whom to choose
among the candidates mentioned for the office in
April last
Are you in earnest about that, Senatorp Do
you really mean what you say?' anxicusly in
CURED the President
al am; never was more so. l know what
can do.n replied Senator FarwelL The President
did not say another word in response to such an
emphatic assurance on the part of the Junior
Senator from Illinois In fact. nothing he said
at that interview could have justified Mr.. Farwell
in looking for the nomination of Mr.. Fuller as a
certainty The name of Mr.. Fuller, however, was
sent to the Senate Ave days afterward. Senator
Farwell was probably as much astonished as any
Of his colleagues over the Presidents prompt de-
cision. As for Democratic Senators. the President
is not supposed ever to have consulted them in the
matter The members of his Cabinet Jared no
better They were as much in the daik as the
leaders of the party in the Senate. 1t was alto
gcther a characteristic performance on the part
Of the President
Mr. Farwcll, Republican, saw himself sud-
denly confronted with contract, entered into
perhaps too hastily, to confirm man for the
highest judicial office in the Coz 4Gy as yet I'M
known except in Western community, whom
no one had ever suspected Of enjoying the con-
fdence of the President but who had been en-
trusted with the distribution in small way Of
the Federal patronage in Illinois, and whose
record in his own home was known to have been
during the War that Of bitter and relentless
copperhead. Mr.. Farwel, however, is not the
man TO reccde from compact ono entered into,
and that he carried It out successfully, notwith-
standing the obstacles which he was bound to
encounter. the substantial majority by which Mr..
Fullers nomination was confirmed to-day shows
beyond the shadow Of doubt
That not a single Democrat voted against Mr..
Fuller's confirmation goes without saying. Any
lingering resentment which might have been
harbored by Democratic Senators who had IA
vored the candidacy of Mr.. Gray, of Delaware,
was promptly smothered in view Of the more
powerful resentment which the occupant of the
White House would have visited upon their dis
loyal and rebellious heads Their vote was
sweled by the accession of ten Republicans
Messrs Farwel Cullom, Cameron, Quay, Frye,
Hale, Davis, Jones' Riddleberger, and Mitchell.
In detail the vote was as follows:
Yeas-Bates, Beck Berry, Blackburn, Blodgett Brown,
Butler Cameron Cockrell, Coke, Cullom Daniel Davis,
Farwel Faulkner, Frye George, Gibson German, Gray,
Hale. Hampton, Hearst Jones' of Arkansas Jones OF Ne
vada, Mcpherson Mitchell Morgan, Pasco Payne, Pugh,
Quay Ransom, Reagan, Riddcberger, Turpie, Vance,
Vest Voorhees,, wathal, Wilson OF Maryand-41.
Nays-Dlair, Bowen Chandler, Dawes, Dolph, Edmunds,
Evarts Hawey Hoar, ingalls,, Henderson, Palmer,
Plat, sabn, Sawyer, Sherman Stewart, Stockbrdge,
Teller Wilson, Of Iowa-20.
Paired In anlrmative-Call, ColQutt Eustis, Harris
Kenna, Plumb, Saulsbury-7
Paired In negative-Adrich, Allison, Chace, Hlscock
Morrill,, Paddock, Stanford-7.
Absent and not paired-Spooner
There were but few speeches made preceding
the final VOTE but some of them were of o de-
cidedly spicy flavor. Mr. Edmunds led off He
did not hesitate to free his mind that was evident.
Still, he did not refer once to the charges that
had been made by certain Chicago parties against
Mr.. Fuller. His protest had nothing personal in
1t whatever. 1t confined entirely to showing
that Democrat, if loyal to his party, could not
possibly interpret the Constitution in the light
that had been thrown upon it by loyal men for
the last quarter of a century. He reviewed in
detail Mr. Fuller's record in the notorious peace
Legislature of Illinois, and illustrated his argu-
ment by copious references to historical judicial
authorities.
Mr. Evarts, who followed, made comparatively
short speech the tenor of which left many Of those
who listened to ii in doubt whether he would vote
to confirm Mr. Fuller or not 1t was evident
however, that he nd not consider Mr. Fuller to
possess either sufficient experience or learning to
ascend the bench as Chief Justice. There were IA
few places, he said-and that of Chief Justice Of
the United States was one OF them-whch should
be reserved for the leaders of the bar only and not
conferred upon lawyers of merely local reputation
However excellent as man. Fuller, in Mr.. Evartss
opinion, not Of the stuff of which Chief JUS
tees are made. This seemed TO be the substance
of Mr.. Evarts's objections, though he evidently
managed to say enough pleasant things about Mr.
Fuller to leave his vote an uncertain quantity
until the cali Of the roll.
Mr.. Stewards attitude was o genuine surprise
to most Senator's. lie had voted to confirm Mr..
Lamar; and if Mr.. Lamar, who had never tried
case of any consequence, satisfied the Nevada
Senator, why should not Mr. Fuller, who at least
had respectable record as lawyer in the Supreme
Court? There were other reasons, however, which
induced Mr., Stewart to cast his vote against Mr..
Fuller Chief among these was, as he gave Sena-
tors TO understand in the course Of his remarks,
that Mr. Fuller was hostile to the silver interest
Of the country, and that he had favored the
Court. But quite aside from this he contended
that no Northern man who had been Coppcrhead
during the war was fit to hold office under this
Mr.. Farwell was satisfied with stating the
claims Of his friend very briefly. He had he said,
known Mr.. Fuller for over thirty years. He could
IL
guarantee his integrity. AS for his legal attain
ments, that was question for the lawyers of the
Senate to settle Mr. Fatwels speech was deliv-
cred with great oaInestness and produced an ex-
cellcnt effect.
The greatest surprise of the day was Mr.. Cul-
Ions, speech. IL had been generally supposed
that he was inclined to follow Mr.. Edmunds's
lead, but he went for Mr.. Edmunds and read
him and the Judiciary Committee the riot act for
reporting the nomination without recommended
ton. IL was an unhcard OF proceeding unjust
TO Mr. Fuller and hardly decent. The committee
had been spending several months in investigat-
ing trumped up charges and then presented itself
before the Senate with statement that IT had
been unable to reach any conclusion thereon.
Mr.. Culloms reasoning gave n few Senators the
excuse-they regarded it as a good One-to vote
afterward against Mr. Fuller 1t ought TO be
stated, however, that there is very little sym
pathy expressed for Mr. Edmunds, principally
because he committed what is generally considered
q serious blunder by treating serious the
charges filed against Mr. Fuller by some Chicago
people, which charges Mr. Fuller answered in
rather clever way by publishing them soon