Hopkinsville Kentuckian. [volume] (Hopkinsville, Ky.) 1889-1918, 1896-07-10
YEAMAN AND BISHOP.
FIRST JOINT DISCUSSION BETWEEN
THE TWO CANDIDATES.
Judge Yeaman More Than A Match For
HIS Adversary-His Position On the
Currency Question satisfactory
to all-Double Standard
Democrat.

4 hO AiCb JOlhb Al6CuCOlOh bCbWCCL
Judge W. S. Bishop, of Paducah, and
Judge Malcolm Yeaman, of Hender
son, two of the candidates for the
Democratic nomination for appellate
Judge, was held at the Court House
Monday. II was Judge Bish.
ops appointment and his expe-
rience will probably make the debate
the last as well as the first. The yet.
eran Office holder from the Purchase
| ran Up against hrzz.saw. His
friends advised him badly if they led
him to believe that Yeaman would
not or could not meet him in debate.
There was good crowd on hand
when Judge Bishop opened the dis
cussion, though many Of his hearers
failed to stay until he closed an hour
and half later. This was due to
the fact that much of his speech
could not be heard. His words were
scarcely audible at times to those ten
feet away, and the deliberation with
which he passed from point
to point was almost painful. His
speech proved to be very indiscreet
one and showed that he had been
badly advised as to what to say to the
intelligent people of Christian county
Judge Bishop started out by ex-
planning that be had been a lawyer
for 80 years and II years Of that time
had been circuit Judge in the Paducah
district. He claimed that his exper-
fence on the bench had better fitted
him for judicial duties than general
practice would have done. He said
Judge White and Judge Yeaman
were both attorneys for railroads and
discussed this point in way that was
intended to make the impression that
he alone was competent to serve as
judge of the court OF appeals in cases
involving the rights of railroads, the
logical inference seeming that he
would decideagainst railroads whether
there was merit in their cases or not.
He insisted thatShis opp0Hents were
honorable men but their illegal train
ing" would make it difficult for
them to decide such cases like he
would decide then.
Discussing the fact that DIR. Clardy's
friends are supporting Judge Yeaman
because that gentleman and the coun-
ty of Henderson are supporting DR..
Clardy for Congress, he spent half an
hour declaring his friendship for DIR.
Clardy, and asking that Christian
county support him over Judge Yea
man, saying he had known DR.. Clardy
when he practiced medicine in Bal.
lard county. He also brought in his
war record, as he invariably does, and
said he was in the Confederate army
with DR.. Clardy's brother. He then
led up to what was intended to be
the climax of his speech,
saying he agreed with DR..
Clardy on all of the funda-
mental principles of the Democratic
party, including the free and unlim-
tied coinage of silver at the ratio of
16 to l. He closed by calling upon
Judge Yeaman to state his views
upon this question.
Judge Yeaman began his reply to
the remnants of Judge Bishops au-
dience, but in few minutes the court
room filed up until he had a much
larger crowd to hear him.
He soon developed the fact that he
is a fine speaker and his ringing
words and pleasing oratory were in
striking contrast to the effort of his
opponent.
He began with a personal reference.
He said he was native of Hardin
county and in early life located over
the neighboring county of Hender-
son, where he had practiced law for
thirty years. He had been engaged
in general practice and had
been employed in some cases
for the Louisville & Nashville
railroad. The railroad had simply
been one of his clients and its cases |
were attended to just as he had at
attended to hundreds of suits for
farmers, merchants, professional men
and mechanics. He had never been
a salaried officer of the road, but rem
dered his bill for services in each case.
he had had nothing whatever to do
with the management of any railroad,
had never been a stockhoider or di-
rector in any such corporation. He
said he had earnestly supported and
voted for the new constitution, that
had been violently opposed by the
railroads. He did not think the
judges of the Appellate Court should
be elected upon any such issues as
Judge Bishop had raised. A Judge
should divest his mind OF all feeling
or prejudice and decide cases upon
their merits alone. The Judge on the
bench should not be a Democratic
Judge, he should not be a Republi-
cam Judge, he ought not to be a rail-
road Judge and-turning to Judge
Bishop with emphasis-he ought
not be an anti-railroad Judge.
C,,.h Uarsr,noantsn az Jndoe RishOp /