Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-10-18
JUDGE DALf'S CASE.

Among the officers 70 be chosen by the
votes Of the people Of New York on the
9Th proxino are three or four Justices of
the Supreme Court-next to the highest
State court. Judge Daily, who has hither-
10 been Democrat, has filled one OF
these positions for twenty-eight years.
That ne has given fair satisfaction on the
bench is admitted; yet when Tammany
made its nominations it left him off its
ticket
II seems that the Judge has never
taken any interest in his party's affairs.
That he ever asked Judge DAILY to do any
thing for him personally, Mr.. Croker most
positively denies: but the Judge had been
requested to give clerkship to another
Mr.. DAILY. which he declined to do.
Mr.. Croker and his associates made no
bones of saying that they had no fault
10 find with Judge DAILY. except that he
failed 10 show any sympathy with the
Marty organization. The Judge is one Of
those Democratic odice-holders who hold
office at the hands of their party without
ever having it to occur TO them that they
ought To be grateful. They share the
fruits OF Democratic victory without con-
tributing TO that end.
Far be it from us to say that a Judge
ought to become an active. busting poll
tician. No. indeed. There are other ways
for him TO show that NE is a Democrat
and that he is appreciative of the labors
OF the partys committees and clubs and
that much-despised but very valuable
class known as party workers" Politi-
cal parties are recognized as essential TO
the welfare of this country. but they could
never be kept together il they were 10
spend their efforts year in and year out
In behalf of men who do not 50 much as
say thank you" for keeping them in Of
tee
Having been turned down by Tammany,
DAILY was nominated by the Republicans,
and very promptly accepted their noml-
nation. Tammany nominated Mr.. Leven-
tritt.
AT the meeting Of the Bar Association
Of New York on Saturday night its Com
mittee on Nominations reported that Mr..
Leventritts professional and moral stand
ing is low, and that his presence upon
the bench would lower it's tone and impair
its credit for efficiency.
If these are facts Tammany has made
u great blunder in nominating Mr.. Leven-
tritt. Doubtless it was justified in seek
ing another man than Judge DAILY for the
party nomination, but out Of the great
multitude Of Democratic lawyers In the.
city of New York surely It could have
found Dalys equal. We say, If these
are facts, because we are not yet ready
10 accept the judgment OF the Bar Asso-
citation We 90 not know how many
members of the association were present
whe1 iis action was taken. We do know.
however that Mr.. Leventritt was tried
and condemned In his absence, and GER
tainiy that was not as IL should have
been. 1t II true that after the commit
tees report was formulated II occurred TO
some Of the members present that form
OF trial should be gone through with, and
one lawyer for the prosecution and an
other for the defence were thereupon
appointed and arguments were duly made
pro ana con. But it nowhere appears that
Mr. Leyentrit, himself had an opportu-
nifty 20 appear in person before the COM
m"'ee Of investisa'ion. II he had been
given that opportunity he might have
inade explanations that would have re-
moved some. II not all. OF the objections
that have been urged against him. But
no; the Bar Association did not proceed
NAT way; hence 1t win ind its repor, very
mach dlscreditcd-- unless the peon,e %
ne city OF Now York are less fair-mindea
.hsh We have always supposed them 10
"s chief charge against Mr.. Leyen.