New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-10-16
MIR. LEvENTRITT ATTACKED.
BAR ASSOCIATION DECLARES HIM TO BE
UNFIT FOR JUDGEsHIP.
CHARACTER BELOW THE STANDARD OF THE
SUPREME BENCH, IT sAYs-AssocIArIoN
DENoUNCEs CRoKERs REJEC-
TION OF JUSTICE DAILY


TIoN OF JUSTICE DAILY.
The Bar Association met last nigh, 10 receive
the report of its judicial Nominations C1Amn-
tee. and, as was generally expected. the report
denounced in the severest terms the refusal OF
Tammany Hall to renomnate Justice Daily for
further term in the Supreme Court In the
plainest language the report stated that Judge
Daily had been rejected by the Democratic party
because he had refused to obey the personal be-
hests OF Richard Croker. The report went fur
ther. The committee which responsible for
its compilation declared Mr.. Leventrtt to he an
unfit person to occupy a seat on the bench OF
the Supreme Court. for the reason, as Il was
asserted, that his professional and moral stand
Ing are low" The entire discussion OF the meet
ing which lasted until after midnight was de-
voted to the turning down. as it was frequently
expressed of Justice Daily to satisfy the personal
animosity OF Mr.. Croker, and to the arraignment
of Mr. Leventritt.
In its formal language the committees report
looked upon the refusal Of Tammany to renom-
mate Justice Daily because he had declined to
subordinate himself to a political manager as a
direct attempt TO assaii the integrity and dignity
Of the judiciary. Some of the speakers saw in
the rejection Of Justice DAILY and in Mr.. Crokers
admission that he had been put aside by Tam
many because the Justice had refused TO grant
favors the leaders of the Wgwam had asked OF
him. deliberate intent to bring about the same
condition Of things In the Supreme Court as
prevailed when its justices were ordered and in
nuenced in their decisions by the notorious
Tweed and SWeeny.
The resolutions cOndemnng Tammany's ac-
ti6n as being against the wish of the bar and
against public sentiment were carried unani-
mously
I
character also carried without dissent
Almost Immediately. however. a protest was
made by one or two members. who contended
that of their own body should not be thus
summarly judged without something being
heard in his defence. particularly the case
against him had been made out forcibly.
! The proposition was received favorably, and
motion to reconsider the matter was carried
Thereupon the meeting practically resolved
! itself into a court Of trial, with Everett p.
| Wheeler for the prosecution, Abner c. Thomas
for the defence and with Mr.. Leventritt the
defendant. In effect, Mr.. Wheeler accused Mr..
| Leaventritt when a member Of a law firm in
| 1873 of being guilty Of irregular and illegal
! practices in divorce case, which Irregularities
were of so glaring a character to unfit him
for place in the Supreme Court.
Mr.. Thomas. who was Mr.. Leven;ritts ad-
vocate contended that at the time the irregu-
larities were committed Mr. Leventritt had
been AT the bar only about year. and that it
his partner who had been entirely respon-
sible for the breaches Of professional conduct.
Eventually, however the committees resolution
condemning Mr.. Leventrtt was carried after a
division by a two-thirds majority
THE COMMITTEES REPORT
James c. Carter presided. and Immediately
after the meeting was called to order, Elihu
Root chairman of the Judicial Nominations
Committee, presented the following report;
New-York October l.. 1898.
To the Association Of the Bar.
! The Committee on Judicial Nominations fur-
! ther reports:
That in the evening yf October II the RePubl-
| can Convention nOu<lated for Justices OF the
Supreme Court Joseph +. DAILY, William y.
! Cohen and Henry T.. Taft. and for the City
| Court George c. Austin That your committee,
| on the morning of Octobe" l.. had further con
ference with the representatives Of the Demo
cratic organization, and that subsequently, on
the same day. the Democratic County ConVen-
| ton nominated for Justices Of the supreme
| Court George 2. Andrews, James Fitzgerald and
! David Leventritt and for Judge of the city
/ Court Theodore f. Hascall These nominations
for the Supreme Court were made in disregard
. of the great petition of the Bar Of New-York
signed by more than three thousand Of its MEM
| bers for the retention of Judges DAILY and Cohen
upon the bench, and of the urgent insstence OF
your committee 10 the same end, and In dsre-
gard of the positive and emphatic expression by
your committee OF the opinion that David Leven-
! tritt ought not TO be nominated
We naturally hesitate 10 express an opinion
which will be injurious 10 any member Of the
! bar: but Lawyer who aspres to the supreme
! Court bench challenges judgment not merely
on his right to practise law. but upon his fit
n, ss for great Office in which the highest stand
| ard Of character and morals ought 10 be MAN,
! tained.
| The Judgment formed by the members Of any
profession or calling upon the character Of one
! of their associates is usually based on long
| course OF conduct no single instance OF which
may be suificietly unmistakabe, standing by
! itself to justify a conclusion. yet the general
! and settled professional estimate or character
thus formed Is seldom wrong. Your committee
/ nrds the general Judgment OF the bar upon Mr..
Leventrtt to be that his professional and moral
standing is low. and that his presence on the
/ bench would lower its tone and impair its credit
! anc efficiency.
| CROKER's REJECTION OF JUSTICE DAILY.
The reasons assigned for the rejection Of Jus
tice DAILY are that upon two conspicuous occa-
sions he refused conform his official action to
the wishes of Richard Croker. The first was
when he refused TO vote u remove Samuel
Jones from the office OF Clerk OF the Court Of
! Common Pleas and appoint Michael I DAILY
in his place Samuel Jones had long been a
respected Judge upon the bench Of the Superior
Court His term OF Office had expired and he
had been invited by the judges of the Court Of
Common Pleas TO accept the place OF clerk OF
their court. He had accepted the place. was
filling it well. as his high character. ability and
judicial experience made IL certain that he
would. and Judge DAILY refused 10 vote 10 re-
move him for the purpose of furnishing place
TO Mr. Crokers follower. The second occasion
was when Judge DAILY declined TO vote To re-
move the judicial sales in the county Of New
York from the Real Estate Exchange Sales
room in Liberty-st. to No. Ill Broadway until
the parties interested should have been first
heard the fact being that the removal would
contribute the profit of the firm Of Peter F.
/ D. 4, to III barI( 'roka had "A n
interest
Judge DAILY was notif "a by Mr. Croker that
for these two reasons he should be refused
denomination. He appear to have been pun
iehed for daring 10 maintain his judicial inde-
pendence, -. -.
The seventeenth bylaw makes ii tie duty OF