Omaha daily bee., 1889-10-27
rho pnr and Sudlo,nry--A History.


OMAHA, Oct %. To the Editor or Tus
BsE; l desire to give short and concise his-
tory of the action Of the bar OF this district
in relation 20 the selection Of the judges.
In 1852 the state legislature passed an net
increasing the number of judges, giving two
instead OF one. A petition was circulated
among the attorneys of the entire district re.
quosting Governor Doves TO appoint Judge
Wakcley, a lifelong democrat, TO the place
Judge James Neville, republican, having
been elected some time before. This was tho
inception of tho idea of dividing the judiciary
between the two parties.
In the fall OF 1883, upon the eve of tho cleo
ton, tho republican and democratic judicial
conventions met on tho samc day and by
mutual agreement each nominated one can
didate, tho republicans Judge Neville aud
the democrats Judge Wakeley, leaving the
second place vacant, when was virtually an
endorsement by both parties OF the two gen-
tlemen. Up TO this time no bar meeting has
ever been held the entire matter being left
TO the party conventions.
In the winter of 1867 the legislature
again amended tho law, increasing
the number of judges in the district to four.
Thereupon Governor Thayer appointed
Judges Groff and Hopewcll. So the b uch
consisted IN the fall OF 1887 OF Judges Wake
ley la dcmocrat), Croft, Neville and Hope
we'll. Judge Neville declined TO be q candi-
date for reelection, so 1t became necessary
to chose some one In his place along with
the other three. 1t was the desire of our
best citizens TO harmonize all political differ
onces in so far as the judiciary was con-
cerncd.
meeting Of the entire bar of the district
was called, to select four names TO be sug-
gested to the party conventions as suitable
persons to occupy the bench. AT that meet
ing resolution passed unanimously recon-
mending Judges Wakeley, Croft and Hope
well, and rs will be shown hereafter,
IlA. Il.
place. The republican convention uLfortu-
nately refused 70 ratify the action of the
bar, only nominating Judge Hopewell-aud
with him Messrs. Estclle, Ballou aud Han
cock, while the democratic conv ention ac-
quiesed in the request of the bar, and placed
Judges Wakeley, Croft and Hopewell on
their ticket, aud also nominated William
Stow. strong democrat, as the
fourth Judge. Mr.. Stow died few days
after his nomination, and the democrats
filled his place with Judge Doane. A citi-
zen's meeting was called, which was par
ticipated in by large number of our leading
and most influential citizens who, BIZ n
hearty unanimity, endorsed the democratic
nominees. In the personnel of tho two
tickets thero was no comparison, it being
universally admitted that the ability aud
legal attainments represented by the citi-
2en's democratic ticket were far superior to
those OF the republican. And upon that
issue the campaign was fought, the result OF
which is so well known.
II will be seen that no bar meeting had
ever presumed TO ever suggest for tho
judgeship any person who was not ut the
date of its action upon the bench. On tho
contrary, after n heated discussion the bar
"voted down" the proposition to make their
recommendation to the conventions "non-
partisan" by not only refusing to suggest
the name OF q democrat for the fourth place,
but also refusing to do more than endorse
the candidacy of the judges who had eX-
pressed themselves willing TO continue their
services. In effect the bar recommended the
existing judiciary and left the balance to tho
This brings us down to the meeting Of tho
bar on September 2S 1889. That meeting
was called to suggest person to fill tho
vacancy occasioned by Judge Groff's resigna-
tion. II was conceded to that none other
than n republican should be candidate
Thure was no understanding that its action
should be tinal. On the contrary, mere sug-
gestion, rather than nomination, precluded
any such idea. And premarily the sugges-
tion was intended for the republican conven-
tion, because q republican was entitled to
the place. Mr. Clarkson was chosen by ITO
votes on the fourth ballot TO "a votes for MIR.
Estelle Davis having been withdrawn after
the third ballot, with vote OF 40 Clark
son. as n epubliCau, was compelled to sub
init himself to the republican convention,
where he had but l6 votes out of 96. DAVIS
secured the balance, Mr. Davis h; not by
word or deed sought the nomination., nor
had any of his friends who y participated in
the bar meeting advocated his candidacy:
nevertheless 1t came to him freely,
spontaneously and enthusiastically This
act of the convention absolved Mr.. Davis
and his friends from supporting MIR. Clarkson,
who thereafter became an independent can
didate. not by any regular nomination, but
upon the suggestion of a portion Of the bar.
But it will be contended that the endorse
ment of Mr.. Clarkson by the democratic
convention makes him non-partisan nom
inee. That fallacy is exploded when the in
side history of how it was brought about
becomes known. A committee was appointed
by the democratic county convention to
name the delegates to the judicial conven-
tion. That committee was controlled by
democratic lawyers, Clarkson men in the bar
meeting, and it very naturally named ma
jority of the convention, who were not only
MIR. Clarkson's friends, but who were also
the attorneys who had supported him at the
bar meeting. The convention met and thirty
three voted on the last ballot to endorse Mr..
Carkson, against eighteen for Mr. Davis,
the delegates from the outside counties re-
fusing toyoto at all.
So then we have the same men who con.
stitutei minority of both the bar meeting
and the democratic convention voting for the
partisan candidate and assumes the prestige
and the precedent of two years ago as the
foundation OF his claim. The case is not In
the least applicable for two all sufficient
reasons
Frst-The republicans two years ago
nominated, as compared with what was then
called the non partisan candinates incompe.
tent men. Second-It is conceded that Mr.
Davis is in every respect as worthy and able
son.
h, w. SIMERAL.