New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-09-27

Norhiug could more clearly show the real nat
urc az ,hc campaign contributions of Judiciary
candidates Than The testimony before he Mazo'
Committee Of some Judges who We're nominated
hy both parties and contributed 10 the cam
1aign fumes Of both. They were sure Of cleo
iion The plea thai the money was used in pre-
Scnting their candidacy 10 The people or I'D
Guarding their interests at the polls viii Not
hold good Neither does the argument that %
iulc'arv candidate j, still citizen with an IN
tcrcSt IN political principles and Justified III
srcnding such sums rs he can actually or pros
pcctvcly. H. anticipation Of his judicial income
afford for spreading his political beliefs men
he impartially gives 5000 or $1,000. ~ INC case
may be TO the p9wy which advocates DIS d"''
trlnos and to the party which opposes Them ne
Is ncutralzing his political efforts ana ms con
trihniion for The lcrit innate party purposes cih"r
of his friends or enemies might ~ well nav"
been nothing. The money. # not wasted is u~'d
for ncgitmatc purposes. sticking 10 the "he'IH
Of the men ~ the machines
That all these Judges thought Of themselves
rs huving nominations is not for an instant u"
be- supposed Some Of them were illc most non
orahlc and able men on the bench. who's" rctcn
non there was an object of interest 10 III" bar
nnd 10 public spirited citizens regardless or
party. The idea Of campaign contributions has
become 50 much \ convention that those Judges
Of high character have accepted II as matter
Of course and simply in obedience 70 custom
almost 20 preserve their reputation as liberal
and sclfrcspecting men have paid the parties
nominating them with utter disregard Of the
necessity Of contribution for The sake Of their
judiciary campaign or its use in promoting or
retarding the supremacy Of their secular poh'-
cal opinions 4 nomination meant conir.hu-
ton and that was al there was of II. not 10
lav the bill was like being mean in any other
matter Thus we find Justice Barrett an OK
rcllcnt Judge who ought by all means 10 be re-
nominated by both parties and reelected TINS
fail without any assessment by anybody when
nominated by every party except the Ir"hbI
ZIONIST fourteen years ago. thinking the proIric
ties Of the occasion required him 10 give sum
10 n friend for distribution among the different
antagonistic organizations. Al that time par
ties printed their own ballots and modest con
trlbution all around for that purpose was natu
raj even if II did contain the germ of bad
practice.
Another case testified 10 yesterday shows th'
bad practice full grown. Judge Cowlng wa
first elected TO the Court of General Sessions by
the Republicans, and he paid them $1,000 Tha
was large sum- but it might be said il repre-
scented his interest in the success Of the Rcpubli
can ticket in general. But what shall he sale
of the cxaction upon him when he ran again
IIc was nominated by both the republicans an'
Tammany Hall lie gave nothing either To pa.
the Republican organization for It's expenditure
in his behalf or 10 promote the success Of hi
Republican principles. But ne did give $1,000 I
Richard Croker 10 10 used against Judge Cow
ing's own political party. The question is Inev
liable: Would Judge Cowing, a Republican
have had the support of Tammany Hall exceT
"for that $4,000" II so, and II It was merel
his share Of the common expense OF the can
D paign In which he was Interested how was
that he bore no share in similar expense &
e the Republicans. In which he was likewise II
> terested?
Q Cloak It as you WILL weave fctions about
:, and make 1t SO much matter Of conventio