Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1895-10-04
Judge Henderson,

| tnere appeared an editorial under the cap
ton which heads this article. A reply to that
editorial was published recently in Re.
publican newspaper. The writer of the
reply wholly misconceived the object of
our editorial. Our purpose was to show
that Judge Henderson was by far the better
qualified OF the two candidates now before
the people of the Sixth Circuit for the posi-.
ton of Associate Judge We think we
demonstrated that proposition; not from
political, and certainly not from partisan
standpoint but from purely economic
point of view. After carefully reading the
reply, we are just as firmly convinced as
before that politics ought to have nothing
TO do with the selection of Judge, and that
Judge Henderson's superior legal attain.
ments ought to secure for him the votes of
all citizens who consider the fitness and
capacity of man to be judge of vastly
more consequence than his political views.
II was whilst contrasting the extravagant
claims set up for Mr. Miller by the young
man who placed him in nomination at the
Point of Rocks convention, with the con-
coded and well.known requirements of
Judge Henderson, that we challenged the
supporters of Mr.. Miller to cite single case
which Mr.. Miller had ever argued in the Su-
preme Court 1t was for the purpose of
bringing out boldly specific instances in
stead of being compelled to deal with in
tangible generalties, that we resorted to this
| method OF argument. At that time We did
not know of, and after diligent search had
failed to find the cases to which we will al
Jude presently. We wished to bring out
sharply and in clearly defined way, the
contrast between the legal qualifications of
the two gentlemen; and the reply which
we are now reviewing has furnished US all
the data we could desire to strengthen the
| ypn N a ri
We stated that Mr.. Miller was, in our opin-
ion, without sufficient experience in his pro-
| fession to make as competent q Judge as
| Judge Henderson is. To refute this we are
told that Mr.. Miller has had tao0 cases in the
Supreme Court, and references are given to
where they are reported. An examination
OF these two cases will show that both of
them originated in the District of Columbia
and that both were cases in which Mr.. Guion
Miller was associated with his father. They
were, therefore, cases which Mr. Guion
Miler's legal attainments did not bring to
him ; but were in the hands of his father
who then was a practitioner OF some expe
rence. The brief, or printed argument, filed
| in the Supreme Court of the District of CO.
lumbia in one case was signed by Francis
| NJ. Darby, Francis Miller aud Guion Miller
and will be found in z Central Reporter 357 !;
and in the other case the brief was signed
by Isaac Ii. Ford and Miller and Miller, and
will be found in Central Reporter 440.
After these cases were disposed of in the Dis
trict Supreme Court, Mr. Francis Miller,
father OF Mr. Guion Miller, died. When the
records got into the Supreme Court OF the
| United States and after the death of the
elder Mr.. Miller four other lawyers were
| employed to assist Mr.. GuioD Miller in one
| of these two cases, and the case was sub
| miIted without oral argument on briei
signed by Francis NJ Darby, Skipwth Will
mer, Guion Miller, John Henry Keene, Jr. +,
Archibald Sterling and Henry Wise Gar
nett, 1919 U. S. 357 The other case, after
the death of the elder Mr.. Miller, was argued
! by Mr.. Guion Miller We have SAID that
both cases originated in the District of CO.
lumbia, and though, there had been thirty,
or more, In the same jurisdiction, that would
not have weakened in the slightest, our
point, that Mr.. Guion Miller was unfamiliar
with the practice of the law in the Courts
Of Ma7yldnd-the very courts IN which, If
elected, Mr.. Miller would SIT.
But to overcome the obvious objection
that these cases furnished no evidence OF
Mr.. Miller's acquaintance with Maryland
law, the writer TO whom we have alluded
has furnished us reference to case which
he says Mr. Miller tried in the Superior Court
OF Baltimore City. If Mr.. Miller actually
tried that case, then we were mistaken in
surprising he had never tried a case in
Maryland. The name of the case is "The
Washington Granite Company vs.. Johns"
1t is No. ISL, June Rule day, 1891. The
records of the Superior Court show that Mr..
Joseph 9, France appeared as attorney for
the Granite Company, and that Mr.. f. q.
| Cook appeared as attorney for Johns. Mr..
Miller's name does not appear on the docket
| of the court at all in any way, much less as
| an attorney connected with the case In
TACT, Mr.. Mller's name does not appear, as
we are advised, among the names OF the
members of the Baltimore City Bar; and
| without being member OF that Bar he
could not have tried case in courts oil that
city. The writer of the reply to our former
article is, therefore, in error In supposlng
that Mr.. Miller tried that case. The writer
of that reply has given us no reference TO
any other case which he claims Mr.. Miller
ever tried ia MARYLAND The dockets and
the minute books of the Circuit Court for
Montgomery county were open TO Inspection
by the writer OF the article we are review
ing, and If those records showed single
law case tried by Mr.. Miller, or more than
one obscure equity case, he certainly could
have given us the names OF them That
Mr.. Miller has brought some suits in uncon
tested cases, as any well instructed law
student could have done equally as well, no
doubt is the fact And 1t is equally TACT
that he took part in the hearing OF a few
unimportant registration cases-political
cases generally managed by young mem
bers OF the Bar. But the point we made,
and now relterate, is that in the broad field
of Jurisprudence, where important ques
tons affecting the grave and serious con
Germs of life arise and engage the attention
of a Judge in the courts, Mr. Miller has not
IA r.aria in rnDle
to Judge Henderson's And after oil that
Mr. Mller's friend has said, has been ana
| lived the result comes down TO this: That
| he orally argued one case in which he was
| originally associated with his father AMI
which, when his father died, remained IN
the younger Mr.. Miler's hands One case
does not make an experienced lawyer any
more than one swallow makes summer,
Iu contrast with Mr.. Miller's inexperience
in the courts of Mary land where he has had
no practice calculated to give him familiar
| ity with established modes OF procedure,
Judge. Henderson's distinguished career as
AN accomplished and successful lawyer IS
marked. In the Court Of Appeals of Mary.
land, in the Circuit Courts Tor Frederick and
Montgomery counties and the courts Of many
other counties of the State Judge Hender
son has had wide experience and large
| and extensive practice. He is a man oil
mature judgment, calm, dspassionate, clear
| sighted, broad minded, honest as the day is
| long and absolutely impartial. Thorough
ly grounded in the principles of jurspru,,
dence az a science and perfectly master oil
| the methods OF their skillfpl application as an
art, and the acknowledged leader of his own
| Bar, no man could be better equipped for the
position of Associate Judge OF this large cir
cult than Judge Henderson. He is eminent
/ ly fitted for the Office The people can make
no mistake by electing him-they might Sc
riously blunder by experimenting with less
experienced lawyers. When Mr.. Miller shall
have developed by study and practice and
| by years OF patient toll in his profession the
intellectual capacity, the experience and the
adaptabity for the Bench that Judge Hen
derson displays It will be appropriate for
his friends to urge bis election, and we shall
have nothing TO say on the subject. But
i