Year: 1873

| which indicates two things of unequal i'm
portance-frst that the case for the govern
ment is deplorably bad, and, second, that the
claqueurs are not altogether lost to shame.
Nobody has good word to say for the nomi-
nation; yet it disappoints nobody. People
had discounted it; it was largely and freely
assumed that the worst possible appointment
would be made. Any name would have pro-
voked criticism, no doubt But the little
murmur that arises from the friends of the
candidates who are neglected when a man is
named for an Office whom they respect, though
they do not favor, is very different noise
from that raised by the general revolt of pub
lie intelligence against nomination that is
not merely o defiance of public opinion, but
that is made in utter indifference to it, with
out so much as any but contemptuous con-
sderation that there is any public, or any
opinion, or any other power but that of one
individual will. Clearly enough the noise
made over Mr.. Williams appointment is of
nomination, because nobody conceived that
the legal adviser of the President through the
Louisiana difficulties might ever come to be
the head Of that Court whose judgment on
given cases can determine one way or the
other-for the people or against them-nearly
every principle on which our liberties rest.
That is to say, there is an outcry because a
worse nomination has been made than was
looked for, but everybody expected bad
one; and this general expectation-this
assumption that the appointment would not
involve any recognition Of the character of
the Office or any endeavor to continue its
| great traditions-what is its significance?
How comes it that the nation has beforehand
made up its mind to the worst in regard to the
discharge Of grave and important functions of
executive duty? Is there any other reason for
it than that the people feel themselves to be in
the hands of personal power that they
recognize that there is no sense of RESPONSE
bility to the people in the Executive, and that
Office is only given through favor and personal
service and is not bestowed as the recognition
of public appreciation of great worth or great
talent? Is irresponsible personal power
already an acknowledged fact


Although we were apprehensive of an
appointment like the one made we were not
without hope that there was one Office that the
Presidents advisers could not induce him
thus to profane. We never speculated as to
what man the President should choose
for the place, but we endeavored to accumulate
in these columns the opinion of the Bench
and Bar of the country on the two main
points-what were the qualifications for the
office and who among our great lawyers pos
sessed these qualifications in the most eminent
degree. There can be no doubt that on such
points the lawyers themselves are the best
authorities; just as the doctors are the most
competent to say who is the best doctor; and,
although professional and personal rivalries
are apt somewhat to warp the Judgment, great
genius is universally recognized by the vast
majority of laborers in the same field In
presenting to our readers, therefore, from time
to time such mass of testimony on this SUBJ
ject as we did in the interviews of our CORE
spondents with leading lawyers in all parts of
the country, we performed our legitimate
function of instructing the people on topic
of great general interest Indeed, as the
opinions thus given were associated with the
names of the eminent gentlemen who gave
them, and as these names were worthy
of the highest respect, our interviews might
have served in this country to accomplish
what is practically, if not professedly, done in
every country having a well organized judi
ciary ; that is the nomination for the highest
judicial post would then have been made by the
Bench and Bar themselves, and the Executive
contented itself with giving to that nomna-
ton legal force; and we believe that no nom-
ination to high judicial Office is ever made in
England without consideration of the opin-
ions of the great lawyers and in France also
this was a usage that only the corrupt days
and the personal rule of the Empire put aside.
Had the nomination of the lawyers been &C
cepted as made by our interviews Mr.. Evarts,
OF this city, or some other really eminent
lawyer would have been Chief Justice by
large majority Of the voices, and the position
would have been filled as it should be-


We are not aware whether the gentleman
named would have made the sacrifices that we
suppose he must have made to accept
the position but we cannot forget
that when the country had great
suit in court when it was called
upon to argue its case before the Tribunal at
Geneva and knew that it would be opposed
by the greatest legal talent that Great Brit
ain-a land of great lawyers-could array
against it; when the standing or falling Of the
Executive before the country was involved in
the fate of its case at Geneva at that mo-
ment the government was fully conscious of
the whereabouts Of great legal capacity and
the result proved the propriety Of its choice
of counsel. Other facts in the history Of
that famous case are instructive, but scarcely
to our credit Englands counsel went home
defeated, but his great service and his great
endeayors were recognized, and he was made