The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-09-03
Republican Hypocrisy Concerning
Judge Maynard.

Il is manifest that the Republicans do
not really entertain any hope Of carrying
Che State OF New York at the coming cleo
ton. They propose. however. to do all In
their power to injure the Democratic ticket
by attacks upon Judge ISAAC H. MAYNARD
OF the Court Of Appeals. who will undoubt-
edly be nominated to fill the place which he
nov holds by the Governors appointment.
There Ii no question as to Judge May
Nxngs legal ability. or rs to his high
character and reputation up to the time OF
the election controversy in 1891. or OF his
judicial integrity and capacity since he
has been ON the bench OF the Court Of APP
peals. The cole, accusation against him Is
that, when acting as counsel in the interests
OF the Democratic party in the autumn Of
1891. he did some acts which the Republic
cans denounce az improper and criminal.
II no other view OF, his conduct on that
occasion could be entertained 1t would be
conclusive against his fitness for any pub
lie ONCE. But different view is taken by
Judge MAYNARD's friends, among whom
are strong and distinguished Republicans.
and we are inclined to think will be taken
by q majority of the voters of this State.
This view is that what Mr.. MAYNARD did
concerning the election returns was really
lawful. Notwithstanding the opinion OF tho
Bar Association of this city to the contrary.
1t Is not necessary to impugn the char acter
or motives Of the committee OF the Bar AS
ISOLATION, for. as Is well known, honest and
able lawyers differ every day about ques-
tions Of law. and 80 do honest and able
Judges. II Mr.. MAYNARD's conduct in the
election cases had ever been reviewed by
the Court of Appeals itself. and that tri-
bunal had declared that he was guilty of
misconduct, the determination would be, or
ought to be. conclusive to the minds OF
voters generally; but in the absence of any
such judicial declaration 1t Is at least par
donable to dissent from the conclusions
reached by committee Of lawyers. how
ever able and upright just as the law laid
down by an inferior tribunal may not COM
mand assent until it Is affirmed by the
court Of last resort.
The hypocrisy OF the Republican cutlery
against Judge MAYNARD is particularly
manifest when we consider for q moment
the conduct Of the Republicans last year in
practically agreeing with tho Democrats to
nominate for Chief Judge Of the Court OF
Appeals CHARLES ANDREWS. who was then
one Of the Associate Judges. The effect
of the unanimous nomination Of Judge
ANDREWS was to create further
VACANCY on the bench OF the Court
Of Appeals. and it was positively known
that II such vacancy occurred. Gov
ernor Flown would fill it by reappoint-
ing Judge MAYNARD. Hence the Repub-
ltcan party deliberately consented that
tho man whom they then denounced and
stiii denounce as criminal, should remain
on the bench OF the highest court Of the
State for q year longer. Would it not be
absurd to say that they did this. really be-
lieving In the truth Of their accusation
against him?
Furthermore. 1t is to be observed that
Judge MAYNARD's associates on the bench
OF the Court OF Appeals are men whose up
Brightness and high character have never
boon questioned. Two Of them. CHARLES
hS,DREws and FRANCIS NJ. FINCH are lead
ing Republicans Does any fair-minded
Republican in the State OF New York sup
pose that either OF these men would remain
on the bench one minute If a man was ap-
pointed to sit With them whom they be-
lieved to be guilty of crime?
We think not.