The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-01-27
An Interesting Question.

Some Of the senators, If they are quoted
correctly. are criticising the President
for nominating for associate justice Of the
supreme court men who are not in entire
/ harmony with the New York senators.
Senator Hill succeeded in having the
nomination of Mr.. Hornblower defeated,
and he declares he will do his utmost to
defeat the nomination Of Mr.. Peokham.
II is possible that the charge against
Mr.. Hornblower, namely, that his Elk
perience as a lawyer did not justify his
nomination to so high place as a seat on
the bench Of the supreme court, may have
had some foundation, but no such charge
against Mr.. Peckham would stand, be-
cause his ability as a lawyer is con-
ceded. Being president of the New
York Bar Association, he virtually stands
at the head Of the bar Of that city If
his nomination is defeated, therefore, it
must be for other reasons, and what
other reasons are there, except that he is
not acceptable TO the New York senators?
VIII senatorial courtesy be carried to
such length as to defeat first-class
man for justice Of the supreme courtl
Besides, supreme court justiceship is not
New York Office. a New York man is
nominated for the vacancy on the supreme
court bench only because it is thought
New York is entitled to the place.
Senator Hill did not like the Horn
blower nomination, because Mr.. Horn
blower opposed Judge Maynard for Judge
of the New York court of appeals. For
the same reason he does not like Mr.
Peckham. 1t seems to be the aim of Sen
ator Hill to compel the President to nom
mate some one who did not oppose Judge
Maynard, who is one of Senator Hills
warnest friends.
But are there no eminent democratic
lawyers in New York who supported
Judge Maynard If there are they are
few and far between. The eminent New
York lawyers-the ones who are qualified
to sit on the supreme bench-appears to
have opposed the election of Judge May
nard
Judge Maynard was defeated by an
overwhelming majority at the last cleo
tion in New York, for the reason that it
was believed that he was not strictly
honest. If the President should name for
the supreme court vacancy some one who
supported Judge Maynard, would not his
action be- in fact, an Endorsement of
Judge Maynard and a condemnation of
the thousands of New York democrats
who voted against Judge Maynard9 1t
certainly would.
II looks, therefore, as if Senator Hill
were trying to make the President in
dorse Judge Maynard, the man condemned
by the New York democracy few
months ago. If the senators should take
this view Of the situation, they would
hardly help Senator Hill in his efforts to
defeat the nomination of Mr.. Peckham.
The nomination of Mr.. Peckham NAV
be defeated, but if it should be, it is GER
tain that the President would not noml-
nate man to the supreme court bench
who supported Judge Maynard, because
such nomination would be equivalent to
indorsing Judge Maynard. 1t is safe to
predict that even should the nomination
of Mr.. Peckham be rejected, the name of
no Maynard democrat would be sent to
the Senate. The President has right on
his side, and it will eventually prevail
against senatorial courtesy.