The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-02-15
AssAIL1NG THE BENCH.

A striking instance of the wrong which
worthy public official is presented to view
in the case of New York Judge who re-
Gently appointed John f. Carroll, the
recognized representative of Richard
Croker in politics, as receiver of a cor
poration.
The facts are briefly these: An agree
ment had been reached by all parties I'll
interest that receiver should be appoint
ed. 1t was designed originally that a
certain local trust company should be
appointed. But from some consideration
or other which does not seem to have
been wholly In disregard Of the influences
which are now said to have operated in
securing the appointment for Carroll, 1t
was decided by the parties that the ap.
tician by the name of Grant. To those
who know Grant and Carroll respectively,
the choice of man to the important pc.
sition in question would unerringly rest
with the latter. He Is the superior mar
of the two In point of intelligence, char
! acter and responsibility; but in point Of
political association there is no choice
whatever between the two.
Judge Fitzgerald chose not to appoint
Grant, and gave the appointment to Car
roll This he had a perfect right to do, il
he chose. His choice was, so far as any
one knows who chooses to lay aside par
tisan political bias, a wise one. 1t has
been followed, however, by an outbreak
of indecent attack upon the court which
would be infinitely worthier of a set of
hoodlums than those who have occasioned
it, and who profess to regard the indie
pendence and uprightness Of the judicial
bench as calling for an exercise of
special guardianship on their part.
Carroll is Tammany politician. So is
Grant, or so would he be. unless, which
we do not know to be the case. but which
we distinctly understand to be within the
bounds Of probable action On his part,
he has found it advisable for his personal
emolument to change his political coat.
Judge Fitzgerald is. forsooth. to be i'm
peached because he did appoint Carroll
and did not appoint Grant. The sugges-
ton is an infamous one, and involves an
outrage as brutal as any that could be
contemplated on the professional and Of
fetal character of the judge making the
appointment.
Judge Fitzgerald had the right to ap-
point whom he pleased. 1t IS the usual
practice, however, to appoint to such
positions these whom the parties con-
cerned agree upon; and it is not in any
sense a binding obligation on the part of
the court, which must believe itself iu-
vested with some discretion in the d.
rector, of conserving the rights and in
terests involved. Judge Fitzgerald may
have had conscientious scruples against
appointing the man Grant. If he
had not he would be all these
intolerant assailants of him claim
him to be. There are many
thousands of persons in New York who
believe that he ought to have had such
scruples if he had not. The only ground
on which his action is assailed is not that
Carroll is less fit than Grant; or that he
is not perfectly fit man in himself; but
that he is supposed to represent Mr.
Croker in his position of political leader
81 ip.
There can be no such thing as the IN
dependence of the bench if such infamous
i'll treatment as this to which Judge
Fitzgerald has been treated finds tolera-
ticn He is a capable judge and upright
man, who has lived all his days in the
city of his birth and who won his way
to judicial honors by sheer force of in
teilectuality and moral worth. To treat
such a man as he has been treated by
these mounting purists is in effect to as
sail the integrity of the bench in man
ner at once dangerous and indefensibls.