The Washington critic., 1888-05-08
WASHINGTON, MAY s, 1888.
MIR. FULLERS NOMINATION CRIT
ICIZED IN HIGH PLACES.

The nomination of Melville w.
Fuller rs Chief Justice Of the United
States Supreme Court seems to be re-
rarded generally as fortunate and
commcndable. by those who know
the man and hisreputation at the bar
from long acquaintance, it is consid-
cred an excellent appointment and
the unanimity with which the press
and people Of Mr.. Fuller's own city,
without distinction of party, congrat-
Mate the President upon the wisdom
Of his selection Of course goes very
far toward convincing the people at
large that no mistake has been made
in this matter.
In all probability this view of the
case viii be justified by results, for
there can be no doubt as to the extent
Of Mr.. Fuller's legal learning or the
dignity and strength of his character.
Yet it is but natural that some ex-
ceptions should be taken to the Presi-
dents choice-exceptions in which
professional jealousy, perhaps, as
well as political considerations, play
an important part; nor are we sur
prised to hear that members of the
Supreme Court itself are not entirely
satisfied with the turn that things
have taken, though for different, if
not entirely disinterestea reasons.
Ii is said that the President utterly
ignored the recommendations of tn }
Supreme Court Justices, who desire /
one of their own number to be q l.
van4ed to first place; and it will
hardy do to say that their objections
10 Mr.. Fuller are based rather upon
personal pique than calm, dispassien-
ate judgment. Their official rank and
experience give them at least the
right to be respectfully heard if moth
ing more.
But the question has arisen in other
minds than those of the Supreme
Bench why the principle of promo
tion that obtains, or is supposed to
obtain, in other branches of the civil
service, no matter how far above or
below the operations of the law,
should not have had weight in the
designation of Chief Justice? Why
not, considering the peculiar functions
and grave responsibilities of the Court,
paramount and controlling weight ?
That such has not been the case here
tofore furnishes no answer to the
query. 1t is barely ten years since
the principle of promotion began to
be recognized-less than that since it
entered into the spirit and letter of a
statute.
Without questioning Mr. Fuller's
merits at all--and we believe them to
be of high order-we are more than
half inclined to believe that the Court
itself did not receive from the Presi.
dent the consideration to which il
was fairly entitled. There is GER
tainly one Republican on the bench
who, by seniority of service, could
have been advanced to the satisfac-
ton of all non-partisans; and there is
a Democrat on the bench with whose
promotion partisans of both parties
would have been well pleased, leav.
ing place to which Mr.. Fuller orany
other reputable iurist could have been
acceptably assigned.
We refer to this matter in no cap
tious or fault-fnding spirit--in fact
we have good deal of faith in the
judicial future of Mr.. Fuller-but
merely to show that if members OF
the Court are disconnected or offended
10y the Presidents treatment of them
they are not altogether without ground
Of complaint.
That they will be reconciled in
time, however, and learn to respect
an appointment that they would moi
have suggested, if they had beer
given the opportunity, is among the
strong probabilities; of course, as
suming Mr.. Fuller's confirmation to be
a foregone conclusion.