John A. Quitman to James Fenwick Brent, March 22, 1845

New Orleans, March 22d, 1845.

dear Sir,—I have received your letter of the 19th instant, requesting my views upon the operation in the State of Mississippi of the system adopted there of electing judges by the direct votes of the people, and asking my attention particularly to the objections urged against the system, that such elections would generally, if not always, turn upon party or political questions.

Having no objections to the public avowal of either my former opinions or present views upon this interesting subject, I will cheerfully comply with your request.

At the time of the adoption of this system in Mississippi, in 1832, I opposed it as a new and hazardous experiment; not that I doubted the capacity or intelligence of the people, but that I feared that the judiciary would be too much influenced by sudden popular excitement. As a member of the convention that revised the Constitution I used my best influence against it, or, rather, to confine the experiment to the selection of the judges of the inferior courts by a direct vote of the people. The experience and observation of twelve years have, however, convinced me and many others who were opposed to the experiment, that our fears were not well founded; and, so far, our system has not been attended with any of the serious evils which were apprehended. I have looked upon its operation in our state for twelve years with peculiar interest, and, from my former opposition to the measure, without any bias; and candor compels me to say that I now regard it as the best mode of selecting judicial officers.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 127-8

James Fenwick Brent to John A. Quitman, March 19, 1845

New Orleans, March 19th, 1845.

Dear Sir, — As the question of an elective judiciary will shortly engage the attention of the Louisiana Convention, now in session in this city, and as it is important that correct information should be obtained relative to the operation of that system in Mississippi, the only state in the Union where the experiment has been fairly tried, I trust that you will pardon the liberty I take in requesting that you will furnish your views, in writing, upon that subject, based upon your experience and observation as a practicing attorney in the courts of that state. The chief objection urged against the system here is, that if the election of judges be intrusted to the people their choice will be generally, if not universally, determined by mere party and political considerations; and I beg leave to call your attention particularly to this point, as connected with the working of that system in Mississippi.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 127

John J. Crittenden to Henry Clay, September 22, 1825

Frankfort, September 22, 1825.

My Dear Sir, — Your letter has been received, and I thank you for your friendly congratulations on my election. You are pleased to attach more consequence to it than it deserves. The general result of our late elections is a triumph, and a just subject of congratulation among the friends of constitutional government. It is my misfortune that so much is expected of me. I speak it more in sorrow than in vanity. The “Anti-Reliefs” and the “Reliefs” both have their eyes fixed upon me. The former expect me to do a great deal, the latter to forbear a great deal. My situation will be delicate, and I fear I shall not be equal to it. The party ought to do nothing from passion, nor in passion. We must retrench, and we must have a short session, must avoid every act of indiscretion which would turn from us the public feeling. It is not certain what course the new judges will pursue. They have not resigned; some of their party talk of their holding out to the last extremity. Supposing them to take this course, and supposing the governor and Senate to defeat the passage of a bill for the repeal of the act under which these new judges were created, ought not the House of Representatives to declare, by resolution, that act to be unconstitutional, and that Boyle, Owsley, and Mills are the only constitutional judges? Ought they not to resume their functions and coerce the redelivery of the records that were wrested from their clerk by the new court? Would it be better to leave the new court in possession of the records and appeal again to the people at the next election? The subject is perplexing, and I should like to hear your views.

Yours, etc.,

J. J. Crittenden.

SOURCE: Mrs. Chapman Coleman, The Life of John J. Crittenden, Volume 1, p. 63

Diary of Gideon Welles: Thursday, April 23, 1863

Favorable, though not very important, news from lower Virginia and North Carolina.

My letter of the 2d and telegram of the 15th to Porter have been effective. The steamers have run past Vicksburg, and I hope we may soon have something favorable from that quarter.

Senator Sumner called this p.m. to talk over the matter of the Peterhoff mail. Says he has been examining the case, that he fully indorses my views. Seward, he avers, knows nothing of international law and is wanting in common sense, treats grave questions lightly and without comprehending their importance and bearings. He calls my attention to the opinion of Attorney-General Wirt as to the rights of the judiciary.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 285

Diary of Gideon Welles: Wednesday, April 22, 1863

Admiral Bailey writes — and I have similar information from other sources — that an immense trade has sprung up on the Rio Grande; that there are at this time from one hundred and eighty to two hundred vessels off the mouth of that river, when before the War there were but six to eight at any one time. Ostensibly the trade is with the little city of Matamoras, but it is notoriously a Rebel traffic. Goods are received and cotton exported by this route under our own as well as foreign flags. I have suggested in one or two conversations with Mr. Seward that it was a favorable opportunity to establish some principle of international law relative to the rights and obligations of adjoining countries having a mutual highway, as the United States and Mexico have in the Rio Grande; that we should require Mexico to prevent this illicit traffic, or that they should permit us to prevent it; but Seward is not disposed to grapple the question, is afraid it will compromise us with the French, says Mexico is feeble, dislikes to make exactions of her, etc., etc. I yesterday wrote the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of War in regard to this illicit trade. Our own countrymen should not have ready clearances and facilities for this traffic, and it may be necessary to establish frontier military posts to prevent it. Perhaps my letters may cause the subject to be taken up in the Cabinet, and lead the Government to adopt some preventive measure; if not, the blockade will be evaded and rendered ineffectual. The Peterhoff with its mail and contraband cargo was one of a regular line of English steamers, established to evade the blockade by way of Matamoras.

Received the President's letter and interrogatories concerning the mail. The evening papers state that the mail of the Peterhoff has been given up by District Attorney Delafield Smith, who applied to the court under direction of the Secretary of State, “approved” by the President. It is a great error, which has its origin in the meddlesome disposition and loose and inconsiderate action of Mr. Seward, who has meddlesomely committed himself. Having in a weak moment conceded away an incontestable national right, he has sought to extricate himself, not by retracing his steps, but by involving the President, who confides in him and over whom he has, at times, an unfortunate influence. The interference with the judiciary, which has admiralty jurisdiction, is improper, and the President is one of the very last men who would himself intrude on the rights or prerogatives of any other Department of the Government, one of the last also to yield a national right. In this instance, and often, he has deferred his better sense and judgment to what he thinks the superior knowledge of the Secretary of State, who has had greater experience, has been Senator and Governor of the great State of New York, and is a lawyer and politician of repute and standing. But while Mr. Seward has talents and genius, he has not the profound knowledge nor the solid sense, correct views, and unswerving right intentions of the President, who would never have committed the egregious indiscretion, mistake, of writing such a letter, and making such a concession as the letter of the 31st of October; or, if he could have committed such an error, or serious error of any kind, he would not have hesitated a moment to retrace his steps and correct it; but that is the difference between Abraham Lincoln and William H. Seward.

I have set Watkins¹ and Eames² to ransack the books. Upton³ must help them. I want the authorities that I may respond to the President. Though his sympathies are enlisted for Seward, who is in difficulty, and I have no doubt he will strive to relieve him and shield the State Department, we must, however, have law, usage, right respected and maintained. The mail of the Peterhoff is given up, but that is not law, and the law must be sustained if the Secretary of State is humiliated.

The Philadelphians are fearful the acceptance of League Island will not be consummated, and have written me. I have replied that there is a courtesy and respect due to Congress which I cannot disregard.

_______________

¹ A clerk in the Navy Department.

² Charles Eames, a well-known admiralty lawyer of Washington.

³ Francis H. Upton, counsel for the captors of the Peterhoff and in other prize cases during the War.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 1: 1861 – March 30, 1864, p. 283-5