Democratic Sentinel, Volume 1, Number 30, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 September 1877 — SCRAPS OF HISTORY. [ARTICLE]

SCRAPS OF HISTORY.

What Justice Field Has to Say About the New York Sun’s Story Concerning Bradley. [San Francisco Telegram.] A few days ago the Daily Exchange published an editorial suggesting the propriety of some reply from Justice Field, of the United States Supreme Court, to the article recently published in the New York Sun, charging Justice Bradley with having read an opinion to Justices Field and Clifford to the effect that the electoral vote of Florida should be given to Tilden and Hendricks, the Democratic nominees, and reversing his conclusion without an alteration of the premises or agreements. A number of attempts have been made by representatives of the press to interview Justice Field on the subject, but he has uniformly refused to say anything on the subject, and in most cases has refused to see them altogether. The Exchange to-day publishes an interview with Justice Field. He at first demurred to giving any statement whatever, but finally said, after some reflection, and speaking with great deliberation, “Well, sir, all that I care to say with regard to that is tliat Justice Bradley read ” [with peculiar emphasis on the word read] —“Justice Bradley read no opinion t' me in advance of a formal submission of his opinion to the commission. Beyond that, I think, it would be improper for me to say anything. If I should enter upon the subject, I should probably say a §beat deal more than I wish to say. ” “ I think I comprehend your reply,” said the interviewer. “The point you make is that the opinion which the Sun says was submitted to you and Justice Clifford in writing was so written, that it was a mere verbal communication of the opinion Justice Bradley had arrived at. ” To this the Justice replied : ‘ ‘ You have my answer; all the answer I can now make. Justice Bradley did not read [again emphatically] any opinion to me as alleged.” “Very well. You,” continued the questioner, ‘ ‘ can raise no objection to my calling attention in my publication of this conversation to the emphasis you put on the word read. That will make the significance of your reply as clear to the reader as it is now to me?” ‘ ‘ You have all the answer I have to make,” persisted the Justice. “I will not discuss the matter in any of its details. ” In the course of some further conversation, the Justice urged his preference not to be dragged into the controversy at all. Ho says that he regretted that his name had beeqused, as he was associated with Justice Bradley on the bench of the United States Supreme Court,and it would be exceedingly unpleasant were their social relations to be disturbed by such a controversy. He also emphatically declined to go any further into the subject, urging tliat the members of the commission were bound by a resolution to respect the secrecy of their deliberations.