Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1915-04-12
NEW ATTACK ON
CHIEF JUSTICE
BY HENNESSy
Bergen Senator Writes Cor
rected Letter to Governor
Fielder.
REFERS TO EDITORIAL
AND NEWSPAPER STORY
lntimates That Original Court
Opinion on Child Case Was
Altered by Someone.

In d second letter to Governor
FIELDER, opposing the reappointment
of Chief Justice William S. Gummere.
state Senator Charles O'Connor Hem
messy renews his attack, but revises,
eorrects and modifies allegations con-
famed In his first communication,
which, like the first, he gives out to
the newspapers for publication.
The senator relies largely upon
newspaper editorial and comment to
support his new assault Here is the
letter:
'sHackensack, April II.
Hon. James r. Fielder, Governor,
Dear Governor FIelder-Since my
letter to you of last week against
the reappointment of Chief Justice
William S. Gummere, certain addi-
tional facts have come to my atten-
ton that | hope you will be able to
investigate before your conclusion is
arrived at. These facts relate to
tfrhe Graham case, in which the
court set aside a verdict of $1,000
against a street railway company for
the killing Of child in the streets
of Jersey City.
.'At the outset, wish to correct
an error in my former letter, where
IN l referred TO Justice Gummere as
having said that the life of child,
under the circumstances, was worth
only six cents. What the justice
said was that damages for the loss
of the life of a child could not be
considered as more than nominal.
Nominal damages, he explained,
meant damages to the amount of 81.
This | derive from an interview with
Justice Gummere in a Newark paper
of July 20, 1898, a copy of which in
terview, in full, / submit herewith.
The Newark paper, editorially COM
fnenting on this case ON the next day,
said:
The Graham Case.
Justice Gummere's opinion in the
Graham case, to which reference has
been made in the Newark paper,
Is the subject of much unfavor
able comment in the State news
papers. His blunt enunciation of
in the eye Of the law, is worth
little or nothing to the father,
because the child is of no pecuniary
benefit, is so repugnant to all finer
sensibilities that 1t is no matter of
wonder that the layman refuses to
accept il. The law may be as de-
ciared by Justice Gummere, but 1t
must be said that he is, at least,
unfortunate in his manner of ex-
pounding it. In an interview had
with him since the publication, JUS
tice Gummere defended his position
by referring to precedents establish
ed by the courts of Great Britain,
but he Yves forced to admit that
judicial tribunals are not always con-
sistent in upholding this rule His
attention was drawn to the fact that
In the case which called forth his
opinion the Supreme Court, upon u
previous hearing, had recommended
81, 200 as reasonable sum to be
paid by the defendant company and
he was asked why, If the child was
of no pecuniary value, the court
awarded any damages at all
Chief Justices Alleged Reply.
g To this query, after some hesi-
tdtion, Justice Gummere is reported
10 have replied:
why, l suppose the court de-
cided that as the jury had been lib
oral IT. would also be liberal; certain
ly q lame explanation If the rule Of
law is as rigid as he had previously
affirmed In the same interview,
Justice Gummere declared his belief
that nine out of ten reasonable men
would say that $1,000 was an exces-
sive amount of damages in such q
case, an opinion as repulsive to the
fine perception of the lay mind as is
his further remark that the amount
of damages in such q case could not
be considered more than nominal, or
81.
Justice Gummere's allusion in
this interview to his former connec-
tion with the Pennsylvania railroad,
as counsel, and his statement that
while occupying such position he had
noticed that A man who recovers
a claim for damages against a rail-
road company begins to improve i'm
mediately after the verdict, was at
least unfortunate, and will not tend
to aHay the popular prejudice against
the elevation of corporation lawyers
10 judicial position.
Il now desire to bring to your at
tention the fact, which seems OF
great significance to me. that Justice
Gufnmere, or some one acting for
him. deliberately changed the word
ing of the opinion in this case after
il had been fled, and presumably
after the unfavorable comment by the
newspapers I realize that this is a
very serious charge, but Ithink 1t
may easily be substant1Sted. That
YOU may appreciate the seriousness
of the matter l ask you to notice the
exact language of the most import
ant part of the opinion, as filed with
the clerk, and as certified to by him
shortly afterwards, as follows:
"It is a universal rule that chill
dren are an expense and not a pecu-
MARY benefit to the father If at the
fathers death an account was stated
showing, on the one side, the moneys
expended by him in the education.
maintenance and support of the child,
and, on the other side, the moneys
received by the father from his child.
in ninety-nine cases out of every hun
dred the moneys expended for the
benefit of the child would be found
+ 10 he far in excess of the amount re-
celved from him.
Says Opinion Was Changed.
.,You will find that the vital first
sentence. upon which rested the
i1,dprnent of the court has been