The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1902-05-02

whether a note, reported TO be in pencil,
has not been changed as can so readily
be done (though no charge OF this kind
Is made as TO Mr.. Busbee). So much
depends upon the exact wording OF a
paper OF this kind. that / may do Judge
Clark an injustice. IL I take the letter
as genuine or assume that its purport
is given correctly in the Wilson article
(which is very im~probable), but on their
own ground il can not be seen that the
judge has lone anything beyond Z has
" and i'll advised act / may d here
that before leaving Judge Clark. he add
ed that while he did not propose te be
drawn into any newspaper controversy
III could say for him. in any article J
might write. that he demanded the
publication of this letter that the peo-
pie of North Carolina might know what
ii is. that there was no official act OF
his which he did not invite the closest
scrutiny. and that Furthermore he de-
sired IN common justice and fair play
that the original OF this alleged letter
should be placed where IL can b. seen
and examined
But suppose Judge Clark did write the
letter 10 Russell. and that a conf
dental letter written by him 10 the
Chief Executive Of the state is diVulged
by that individual in breach OF all hon.
lorable sentiments obtaining among gen.
tlemen. and these men who were so in
innate with Russell as TO obtain and
laval themselves of such a breach of
confidence have neither changed the
tenor of the paper, and lave reported il
correctly in the so-called Wilson PAM
phlet. which is by no means certain,
what Of that? Suppose, to put it on
their own showing, Judge Clark had ad-
vised Russell In the proceedings against
IOtho and James Wilson and had cor
rected a legal paper (Which Russell. il
is said. did not use) it was in a case,
and as to a matter which could not
come before the court. A man who has
formed n expressed an opinion on the
facts is competent as a juror in that
same case. if he feels that he can Civ
an impartial verdict. But Judge Clark,
if indeed he expressed any opinion did
mot sit on that question, but in a differ
lent case in which it is true merely that
the two Wilson's were plaintiffs. If, in
such condition Judge Clark conceived
that that legal paper which he had cor
rected for Russell. could be used by
some designing person Gas it is now &C
tually sought to be done) and wrote a
mote to Governor Russell to destroy il,
where is the crime? 1t shows great
folly in Judge Clark in writing such a
note to a man of RusselPs character who
might allow it to be miSrepresented and
misused. but that is the full extent of
the sin and no more. Those who have
Ebeen guilty of no folly or imprudence
in the course of a life time can throw
a stone at him, but it does not lie in
the mouth of the man who is understood
to ave penned a part Of that pamphlet
lat least. and who sought and held office
by RusselI's' appointment, to belittle
Judge Clark for having written a letter
whose favor and office that writer
sought.
Having been for many ear chief
lclerk to several successive secretaries
lof state, I happen to know that every
governor from the time Judge Clark
went on the superior court bench until
lGovernor Russell came in, availed
themselves freely of Judge Clark's legal
knowledge and sound judgment by con-
lsulting him in matters concerning the
Estate. If it should be true that Govern
Tor Russell did the same it was but what
his predecessors had done.
When the two Wilson's were removed.
lit was said that Governor Russell would
lappoint a populiSt and a democrat to
Isucceed them. He did appoint Hon.
John H. Pearson. of Burke, as a demo-
Icrat. and L. G. Caldwell, as the populist.
The former was appointed upon the re-
recommendation of leading democrats
from BURKE and in other parts of the
Estate. I do not know whether Judge
lClark concurred in his recommendation.
but if he did. there was no improperly
in it.
1 notice that DR.. Thompson denies In
Ian interview in The Argus, tina Judge
CLARK asked him to recommend him to
lGovernor Russell for chief justice, as
stated In the Wilson pamphlet, and says
that he did not eve go to Judge Fair
lcloth's funeral, where It .s charged that
the crime was committed. 1t is said,
Though I have not seen the statement,
THAT he a since located this conversa-
ltion at a different time and place, but
cannot follow Cy. Thompson in his
ltwistings and turnings as to alleged
confidential conversations which he
says he had with any one. The fact
THAT he says he violated confidence to
repeat such conversation, and that he
has already toll two tales about it, IL
Ienough. This once shining pul
light now holds down a republican
Iclerkship in the revenue office, and lii
Saul is found among the profits. Why
lis he SO anxious to save the democrats
from nominating Judge Clark? n
lis their choice Of an available candi-
idate to him? Is he coming over to US
lif we nominate a candidate to suit him?
iGod forbid.
Major Wilson alludes to the salarv
which Judge Clark has received. North
carolina pays her supreme court judges
less than any ether state in the Amerl-
lCan union, ave enc state only. Even
4 " luos
and other small states lay more. Sew
leral Of inc smaller states pay their SUI
ipreme court juty"s double h we
do ours. No one will deny that Judge
Clark has been Industrious and has
rendered full yaiue. But while the Of
flee has not beer: worth much to him
lit is evidently worth big money to
lsome people who are trying to get him
out. and have Dnen trying for Yeas.
THE federal judges below the United
Estates supreme court are, with a few
bic exceptions, VIGOROUSLY ap-
pointed and largely controlled by the
great railroad corporations and trusts.
The only obstacle in their wa is an
independent state supreme court. They
are now trying to capture that. For
years their attorneys and agents have
been whispering ~slanderous Instructions
to undermine n destroy the Well
learned confidence which the Iet.pin of
North Carolina repose in Judge Clark.
1T Is fortunate for hin that they have
now had the .lshness to make their