The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-04-19
Advertisements for THE WEEKLY Sun.
issued tomorrow morning. must De hdnded m
Ais epenfno before o'clock.

his epenfnO before o'clock.
Judse Maynard and the Bar Associa-
ton.
We cannot positively affirm that the Joint
Judiciary Committees OF the Legislature
have rs yet adopted every line OK tho fol-
lowing report. But upon the whole 1t em-
bodies sounder conclusion for them to
adopt It than to let the matter drop.
1t may DO that Judge MAYNARD needs no
vindication: but when a Bar Association
behaves like an irresponsible Mugwump
mob. rcprobation should follow:
10 THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE or
NEW YORK:
The undersigned. for tho Judiciary Commit
tee OF the Senate and for the judiciary Com
mittee OF the Assembly. to whom was referred
tho report OF committee OF nine members OF
the Assoc alton OF tho Bar OF the City OF New
York. and It's request that tho SENATE and AS
sembly CONSIDER whether the conduct OF
Judge ISAAC II. MAYNARD does not demand an
exercise OF the power to remove Judges vested
by the Constitution In tho Legislature" con-
cur in tho following report aud recommend
the adoption Of tho subjoined resolution.
It IL not for Mr.. MAYNARp's conduct "a a
Judge that anybody suggests his removal as
Judge. although nino learned attorneys care-
lessly say so when they do but coll In question
the conduct OF q tenth attorney.
Tho conduct OF Judge ISAAC II. MAYNARD"
IL not impugned
Heated litigation often oxpiros In railing ac-
cusation. resenting defeated hopes. In the
present instance tho railing is addressed to tho
Legislature instead OF the court. and. by q So
called statement OF facts honeycombed with
error. omission. and bias. an offence is insinu-
ated against tho successful attorney instead
OF being charged before proper tribunal and
put to the test OF proof.
1t Is needless for your Judiciary Committees
to recite the recent decisions OF the Court OF
Appeals and exhibit anow their application OF
law to tho electoral facts. whereby tho peoples
will was made to prevail ut last In the political
control OF tho present Legislature Of tho State
OF New York.
The Court Of Appeals need no defenders to
attest the vigilance OF their care for overy
right and interest which wore lately submit
tod by full stipulation to thor Just arbitra-
mont: neithor do they need ondorsers OF their
discernment when they welcome to their
bench ono whom they deem worthy success
sor and associate Of those who have made its
fame illustrious in the jurisprudence Of the
United States
Tho public at large. however. including tho
great majority OF n learned profession. seeing
how partisan resentment and political passion
have engcndercd tho very brutality OF injus-
tice. may vol ask for demonstration that tho
Committee OF Nine lack the truth as we'll as
tho courage Of their indictment
For once the truth need not be ''ns tedious
Is lying"
Ono fact everywhere suppressed. ono loyal
principle everywhere ignored. by these accus-
ing nine attorneys. will explain the advice Of
tho successful tenth attorney. and explode
their pretentious assault upon his doings.
Obviously that assault must pivot on the
contents. and legal situation OF tho contents.
Of the sealed envelope mailed to Comptroller
WEMPLE by STORM EMANs. County Clerk OF
Duchess county at 1888 p. NJ. Dec. p. 1901.
and by him. early the next morning. with Mr..
MArNARp's assistance and approval. recovered
and replaced In the Office safe OF the Clork OF
Duchess county.
toned is that the contents Of that envelope
were false and fraudulent return OF the re-
cont election in Duchess county.
The Committee OF Nine assume and state as
fact that the MYLoD return (which was can
vassed and counted by the State Board) was q
false return: and that tho return In STORM
EMANss mniled envelope wns true return.
Both branches OF this ondeavor by the Com
mittee OF Nino to correctly state tho facts"
are absolute gross error.
I. 1t hos nowhere been held that tho MYLoD
return was false return.
2. 1t has been judieially determined that the
return in STORM EMANs's mailed envelope was
. false and fraudulent return. tSupreme Court,
General Torn. Second Department. Opinion
per Pratt. ~
Moreover. that opinion had been handed
down and published prior to the signing and
sending hither OF the report Of the Committee
Of Nino Moreover. that pregnant decision Is
nowhere mentioned In tho report OF the Com
mittee Of Nine.
Moreover. every member OF the Committee
Of Nlno who testified before your Judiciary
Committees omitted to mention that pregnant
decision.
II that omission was with ignorance. tho
accusing nino nro Incompetent critics OF Mr..
HAYNARp's professional advice.
II that omission WAS with cognlzance the
accusing nine can more safely conduct IN i'm
parchment OF thoir own moral than OF his
judicial character.
Nor was that the only essential fact many
limos suppressed In report and testimony.
The Committee Of Nine. In their report. tor
tuously contend. Just as II 1t wero AN honest
IN honorable proposition. that the stipulation
By counsel on both sIdos. which submitted
everything to tho Court OF Appeals. could not
be construed as preventing STORM EsASs from
forwarding tho false and fraudulent return
But the Supreme Court held tho contrary.
constituting tho stipulation precisely otherwise
than tho Committee OF Nine pretend to con-
gtruoit
the stipulation as all the counsel on both sides
al I'M Nptt IN nd na Mr.