Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1891-03-12

/
which the paragraph occurred, quoted
in my letter to-the Mons and reproduced
in the attack upon me above mentioned.
| was not only incensed, but shocked
\ also, at the accusation resulting from
the words used in the paragraph; for il
was utterly untrue that did not think
4 that Mrs Roche was not entitled to 4
4 divorce Chat is, that ! thought she WASH
and also untrue that my non.concur.
renee with my brethren was, that !
though, concurrence would make Del
4 aware d place Ui refuge for other i'll
mated couples" Now here was a
/ charge in effect, that i, a judge of the
| superior court, has denied my assent to
| 4 decree Of divorce u case where L
believed the prntlpnrr had proved her
1 atlf 70 be entitled iult, because wanted
4 tc discourage failure applications TO the
| courts VI Delaware oy others coming
into the State u ubtain iiyofccs, What
4 %ns | % do? The chuf&a affected my
judicial l1AoraUdiniasr.iy and imputed
4 q Nlunt1il u uig pllleal 9aih, part Of
Wlien h, % perform the Gatics ot my
0Risu u chief justice With fidelity, !
t9u.d not rest NAdor TINT IN silence,
without Virtually admltln@ the allega-
/ vGar, ifm silence, would forever DIS
Grace me and all connected with me;
4 DE!Hg di5crGdH dp0n lha flalo and the
\ professional the "W, and drive me from
4 the cat | llad proved myself 10 be un
| worthy %. There was, under these cir
| ctlnlaisuees, lat one course for mo to
ttNoi lor PIP one could talie II Tor me;
and TINT was TO deny, rs publicly rs II
was made, the correctness 81 the state
| lAcnt as 70 my position rs una OF the
memhers 81 the court, and % that by
snch expression as would forbid rope
ilhon q u, Accordingly composed
my iPttef Y We -Nel2s winch, y my
a&sallahI q to be oelieyed, has caused
such alllnladNersioh by INC har Of New
| castle county, Il was sent 10 That
| paper simply because when IL was
ready Ter the man II waa not N tlme 70
70 DC published IN your paper llle DAY "
was SEM on, ana therefore publication
N me Ae0S would sooner reach the
! pubic Eye NOW, What Is thele oDlec-
uoilahle III lhaI icttef ~ was
WIltleh purely IN Gell.delence
against q malignant, crlmlnally
iipellous ataek upon my oHleial
! hohnrI-oy llhputihs lishohesty IN my
oileiai conduct. mad TO reply 70 II III
uhoqulNocal lerfhs--stich as would eA-
cillde any inference that there might pc
some ruin N me statement, aitef an.
ne hcua anu IFeht OF my oHehuinB
hath thlS extent, no more there Il IN
inc letter no reheelioh IN lacl, or IN
tehaea, upon my colledgues, LOT Whom
htNe 80 lliucll fespect IoF thelr learning
ana ildeilty TO dlty, ana also most
| alIeellohale personal regard. lhelr
opinions are recorded ~ the decree nlsl
alllflhlhg me innings OF the commas
sloher VINO look the testlinohy anu
heafd the case. contented myself
win inc simple language, AZ the end OF
the llhai decree, "lile chlel Justice non
cohenfrlng herein. ! a. one Tune, sup
posed maj reasons AT length might be
given Tor favorable Judgment, II one
should pc MADE, ana prepared myself
WIN dissenting opinion, IN winch l
discussed the whole subject, but as my
brethren as 1t turned out had no pun
pose u giving any special grounustor the
conclusion they reached, was satisfied
with the ordinary expression OF dissent.
u Is true-that did not lind in the tes-
tlmony IN the case anything which, as
proof, tended to establish the petition
ers right to y divorce, and so wrote.
cannot see under the circumstances OF
tins case, how this is delivering my
opinion through the newspapers flor
my opinion upon the facts and law of
the case have never been published),
whereas it is only stating conclusion
reached by the reasoning of that opinion
which, to make my defence complete,
It was necessary, in my judgment, |
should give. A design to reflect upon