by; the party itself has been pretty generally convinced, that the system then adopted, ought to be abandoned; that the supreme court ought to be constituted as it was before; yet these Democrats, many of them, are still under the ban; so true it is, that in all party matters, a breach of discipline, a rebellion against leaders, is regarded as infinitely more offensive than the mere support of wicked or unwise measures, or opposition to good ones. A party never holds its members to account for supporting the worst sort of measures, or opposing the best ones, unless the leaders have made them the test of fidelity to party; but woe to him whose conscience is so tender, that he cannot support, or oppose, the measures decreed by his party! Woe to him who is guilty of a breach of discipline, or who rebels against leaders!" A brief notice of the newly appointed judges will not be out of place. They were Thomas Ford, Sidney Breese, Walter B. Scates, Samuel H. Treat and Stephen A. Douglas. Three of these, Breese, Treat and Scates, had been circuit judges, and their appointment was a well deserved promotion. For many years they honored their position as judges with unquestioned integrity and marked ability. For Mr. Ford's appointment, some other reason must be found. He held the office for only two years, and was then elected governor of the state. As to Mr. Douglas, we quote from Stuvé and Davidson: "He had made a violent attack upon the old judges by a characteristic speech in the lobby, and had furnished McClernand the data upon which the latter denounced the court; in view of all of which, it seems strange that he had sought and obtained a position side by side with the gentlemen he had traduced and attempted so much to bring into disrepute. Partisan scheming and the cravings of office could not well go further." And to this it may be added, he was a member of the house of representatives, and the originator of the whole scheme, and its most efficient advocate. During all this controversy, so long as the abuse was confined to lobby speeches, anonymous newspaper articles, and unsigned hand-bills posted around the capital, the justices maintained a dignified silence. But in the heat of debate in the house of representatives, John A. McClernand made a direct attack upon the which could not be overlooked. justices with specific charges John J. Hardin, also a member of the house, addressed a note to the justices, calling their attention these statements and urging upon them a public denial. To this communication the judges made the following reply, drawn up by Judge Lockwood and signed by all four of the justices: JOHN J. HARDIN, Esq. SPRINGFIELD, Jan. 26, 1841. Dear Sir:-Your letter of to-day has just been received, and we proceed to answer it without hesitation. In doing so, we can not, however, but express our great astonishment at the character of the statement to which you refer. You say that Mr. McClernand, a member of the house of representatives, has asserted in debate:-"I am authorized to say, and I do say on my own responsibility, if any such responsibility is needed, that the judges of the supreme court prepared an opinion against the right of foreigners to vote, at the last June term of that court, but on account of objections made by counsel to a mistake in the record, they withheld their opinion, but did so most reluctantly. The opinion has gone abroad that these judges have made the decision, recently delivered, on the subject of the right of foreigners to vote, in order to defeat the bill under consideration, and to prevent these judges going on the circuit.” To this statement we give the most unqualified denial in all its points; neither of the members of the court having ever prepared, or written, any opinion against the right of aliens to vote at elections. "As to the insinuations, that the decision of any case was made at the time to defeat the judiciary bill, we reply: it is in all its parts equally unjust, and without a pretense for its justification." We have thus promptly complied with your request, and we cannot close this communication, without remarking the great injustice done to ourselves, not only by the statement referred to, but the numerous other slanders, which, in our situation, we have no means of repelling. We have the honor to be, respectfully your obedient servants, To meet this denial, Mr. McClernand gave, as authority for the statements made, the name of Stephen A. Douglas, and Mr. Douglas, to meet this pressure brought upon him, was compelled to give the name of Thos. W. Smith, the Democratic justice, and substantiated his statement by the certificate of six others of the members of the house of representatives, that they had heard Justice Smith make the same charge against his associates. Stuvé says, "There is now no doubt that Smith made the former statement, nor is there any doubt that it was false." "As to Judge Smith," says Gov. Ford, "he made nothing by all his intrigues. By opposing the reform bill, he fell out and quarrelled with the leaders of his party. He lost the credit he had gained by being the Democratic champion on the bench, and failed of being elected to the United States Senate; and was put back to the laborious duty of holding circuit court." He farther adds: "Judge Smith, (I regret to say it of a man that is no more) was an active, bustling, ambitious, and turbulent member of the Democratic party. He had for a long time aimed to be elected to the United States Senate; his devices and intrigues to this end had been innumerable. In fact, he never lacked a plot to advance himself, or blow up some other person. He was a laborious schemer in politics, but his plans were always too complex and ramified for his power to execute them. Being always unsuccessful himself, he was delighted with the mishaps alike of friends and enemies; and was ever chuckling over the blasted hopes of some one." In this connection it may be added, that in 1833 Judge Smith had been impeached by the house of representatives on several charges of gross misdemeanor in office, and only escaped conviction by the senate, by that provision of the constitution which required a two-thirds vote of that body to sustain the charges. The council of revision did not, of course, approve the judiciary bill, and returned it to the house with their objections clearly and forcibly stated. This document was drawn up by Judge Lockwood. The bill, however, was repassed, but in the house by a constitutional majority of only one, and that one vote was given by a member who opposed the bill on its first passage, and who immediately after was appointed clerk of the supreme court as newly organized, the five new judges, without any consultation whatever with their associates, turning out the old clerk and、 putting this new man in his place. The spirit of the general assembly is shown by its treatment of Judge Brown, in assigning the judges to the different circuits. His home was in Shawneetown, the extreme southern part of the state, where he had resided and held the office of judge since the organization of the state. Now in his old age he was assigned to the Galena circuit. This was done with the hope that it would secure his resignation. This not proving successful, an attempt was made to remove him from office by action of the general assembly on the following charges, signed by several prominent lawyers, specifications as follows: "That he had not the natural strength of intellect, and lacked the legal and literary learning, requisite and indispensable to the high and responsible duties devolving upon him as a judge of the supreme court; that his opinions delivered in that court were written and revised by others, and that his decisions on the circuit had been the mere echo of some favorite attorney; and that by nature, education and habit he was wholly unfit for his high position." This stirring language indicated something more than a purpose to solely subserve the public good; however, the general assembly took no action in the matter. These incidents are here recited for the sole purpose of indicating, and keeping in mind, the great obligation of the state to Justices Wilson and Lockwood in maintaining the integrity and high standing of its supreme judiciary, whose reports have ever held a good standing as compared with older and much more favored states. This was the most trying period of Judge Lockwood's life, and for the next seven years, his position was extremely unsatisfactory. His official duties, hitherto burdensome, were largely increased, and required an absence from home the larger part of the year, and during sessions of the supreme court he had to take his place side by side with men who had maligned, slandered and abused him. CHAPTER X. AN OLD TEMPERANCE LECTURE-PROBABLY THE FIRST EVER GIVEN THE IN OUR STATE. HE General Assembly of Illinois, in 1827 passed an act re-organizing the judiciary of the State, assigning circuit duties to the justices of the supreme court. Under this arrangement Judge Lockwood was required to hold the circuit courts in the eleven northern counties of the state, as follows: Jo Daviess, Peoria, Fulton, Schuyler, Adams, Pike, Calhoun, Greene, Morgan, Sangamon, and Tazewell. In entering upon this arduous work, Judge Lockwood wrote out and delivered in open court, in each of the counties, the following instructions to the grand jury: To your hands are committed the peace, good government and safety of society. The manner in which you perform the duties appertaining to your station will evidence the regard you possess for the laws of your country and the happiness of your fellow men; for without your intervention, no violator of the penal laws of the country, however high-handed may be his crime, can be brought to justice. In performing this duty you should exercise great vigilance and circumspection. Vigilance should be exercised that every offender may be brought to meet the punishment his crime deserves; and circumspection should be used that no person be charged with a crime of which he is not guilty. Hence you will perceive that your duty requires you not only to see that the great interests of society be not trampled under foot by the lawless, with impunity, but that you are also to be a shield to protect the innocent from the false accusations of the malicious and unprincipled. Your duty is, therefore, one of great importance and delicacy; but it ought, nevertheless, to be discharged fearlessly and according to the dictates of a good conscience. |