? jKaaftie.i "jgiuQSMmauemuto
6
!l.J
119!
t '
'pw;
that of assistant city counselor by appointment.
;As a lawyer, he severed all connection with cor
poration clients in 1900.
It was probably at about that time, too, that
Mr. Walsh swung actively into the game of
social service. Before that time he had been,
as ho is yet, a strong supporter of union labor,
and his private charities were manifold. But
in that oarlior time politics seemed to him about
tho only worth while field for a man to work in,
and tho party was a strong fetich. "Why, actu
ally," he says with a smile today, "I thought It
was immodest for a man to set up his own
opinion against that of his party."
Walsh will tell you that he was going along
by Instinct rather than insight until he met
Charles Ferguson, that inspirational minister
and radical and "friend of the people," who set
forward much social work and stimulated many
social workers in Kansas City. Tho late years
havo found Walsh combining politics and this
social service for the betterment of the plain
man's living. He fought tho Metropolitan fran
chise grab; ho established the Kansas City board
of pardon and paroles, later developed into the
board of public welfare; he led the people's
lobby in tho fight for the public utilities law of
Missouri. And those are only random instances.
He Is a factor in tho remarkable social advance
ment of Kansas City.
You will see that this is the record of a fight
ing idealist fighting with himself against his
own prejudice, as well as fighting in the outer
field.
"Tho real question pf this day," said the
Idealist Walsh, "is the material question, the
economic one. The rights of man of this time
are tho right to eat, the right to live decently,
the right to work, the right to a comfortable
home, the right to have children without won
dering whether his children hadn't better die
than grow up.
"I'm done with compromise." The Irish jaws
clamped tight. It was the fighting face that
showed. "I'm not going just to strike a bargain
with other men to get a little here and. a little
there. There's too much sham in it all. It is a
sham to think that the men who make the laws
ate running this country, or that any servants
of the people are running it, much less the
people themselves. They're not. This is a gov
ernment of the people, by the federal judges,
for' the special interests.
"Run for governor, indeed!" said Walsh.
"Why? What good would that do? The Mis
souri legislature in the Folk administration
passed a world of good laws, and the federal
court worked overtime to undo what had been
accomplished for the people. 'The interests kept
the rails hot between Jefferson City and Kansas
City and Red Oak, Iowa.
"What's the remedy? Well, we can't amend
the constitution, but wo can put men in the
courts who will be for the rights of man rather
than for tho wrongs of property. We can put
a progressive sentiment behind the laws so
strong that the judges, from tho lowest to the
highest courts, will be afraid to overthrow the
people's will.
"It is ridiculous to say that judges declare
the law as they find it. They declare it the way
they bplieve it to be, and they believe it to be.
the way they want it to be. I could pick seven
honest members of the Kansas City bar who be
lieve in municipal ownership and put them on
the Jackson county bench, and they will all
quote you complete authority for the proposi
tion that the city could take over the Metropoli
tan Street Railway company. And then I could
pick seven,other equally able and honest lawyers
who did not believe in municipal ownership, and
put them on the same bench," and they would
quote you complete authority for the exactly
opposite proposition, that tho city could not take
over the Metropolitan.
"The question of government of this day, then,
is the question, of who controls the courts. Do
you know the first step I'd take, if I could, to
give the people control? I'd have congress pass
a law wiping out every federal court under the
supreme court. There is no diversity of citizen
ship In this country now. There may have been
when congress established the courts. Vir
ginians may have thought they could not get a
square deal in Massachusetts in those days, and
Massachusetts may have mistrusted Virginia.
But it is a mistake to assume now that the citi
zens of one state cannot get justice from the
citizens and courts of another state. It's a mis
take to let a corporation do business in one
commonwealth but bring its own court along
with it for its own brand of justice.
"No," and the Walsh good nature chased away
The Commoner.
the fighting face; "there is too much work to do
putting the people next for me to fool myself
running for governor or being governor. I am
a democrat because I believe the people of that
party have the best idea of what they want and
how to get It, but if the democratic party gets
betrayed into wrong hands, I'm going to be free
to vote and work for the right hands wherever
they show themselves. And, anyhow, I've told
you where my work lies in the outer field with
the agitators, tho men who won't stand for lies
because they are old.
"And I like my job. I am leading the life I
want to lead. In my private business as a lawyer
I have not a regular client, excepting, in one
sense, some labor unions. I am as free as any
man can be to speak my mind and advocate the
things I think are right. So, while I am grati
fied at the honorable mention I have had, and
thank tho many personal friends and other
citizens for the support they have offered, I
wouldn't take the office or the nomination if I
could get it and, in spite of what some friends
are kind enough to believe, I am sure I could
not get either the nomination or the ofllce if I
would."
Judicial Tyranny Is Rebuked
Facts in the Thatcher Case
(See 80 Ohio State, 492.)
The following story will interest the readers
of Tho Commoner. It shows what judges will
sometimes resort to and how judges can be
rebuked.
In the fall of 1908 Lindley W. Morris was a
candidate for re-election as judge of the com
mon pleas court at Toledo, O. The candidate
against him was Curtis T. Johnson, a lawyer
of ability who had not served as judge.
Judge Morris was conducting a spirited cam
paign, claiming that he was a friend of the com
mon people and enemy of trusts and corporate
interests, in short that he was partial in his
decisions to one class of people as against an
other class.
One Charles A. Thatcher was a1 member of
the Toledo bar. When a student of law he was
in the office of the Hon. Frank H. Hurd, who
had made a reputation at the bar because of
successfully prosecuting many cases against
railroad and other corporate interests to collect
damages because of personal injuries.
Mr. Thatcher continued this line of practice
after the death of Mr. Hurd. He practiced in
Judge Morris' court for some years and became
convinced that Judge Morris was too friendly
to corporate interests as shown by his action
in taking numerous cases brought against cor
porations from the jury and directing the juries
to return verdicts for the corporations.
After the claims of Morris had been widely
published during the campaign, Mr. Thatcher
and Mr. Ben W. Johnson, brother of the oppos
ing candidate, a lawyer and assisting prosecut
ing attorney of Lucas county, caused the public
records of the court in which Judge Morris had
sat to be examined by a competent clerk and
published the same in the form of a' newspaper,
called "The Judicial Reform Bulletin."
The purpose of the articles so published was
to counteract the claims made by Judge Morris
to the effect that he was a "friend of the people"
and was an effort to show what Mr. Thatcher and
Mr. Johnson thought to.be his real character.
Mr. Curtis T. Johnson defeated Judge Morris
at the polls.
Some time after this certain railroad lawyers,
whom Mr. Thatcher had frequently opposed in
hotly contested suits, caused a complaint to be
lodged with the supreme court of Ohio, to the
effect that the action of Mr, Thatcher in pub
lishing Judge Morris' record was unprofessional
but said nothing concerning Ben W. Johnson,
whom they knew had taken part in the publi
cation. Two leading lawyers of Columbus asked the
court for a hearing before any action was taken
in the complaint.
No' response was made to their request.
Frequently, in years past complaints had
been made to the supreme court against lawyers
in different parts of the state but that cburt
had always refused to entertain them, one of
the .judges once saying: "If we entertained
complaints against members of the bar, we
would do nothing else but wash dirty linen from
every county in tho state. You must start such
matters in your home county."
. The supreme court appointed a committee of
six members of the Toledo bar, four of whom
w.ore attorneys for railroads and enemies of Mr.
Thatcher, with instructions to prepare and file
VOLUME 11, NUMBER 3f
charges against him instead of investigating, and
if just cause existed, to file such charges.
The committee did as ordered.
Counsel for Mr. Thatcher filed a motion set
ting out the fact that the supreme court had
always refused to entertain original complaints
against attorneys; that a large number of wit
nesses would be required on both sides who
would be required to travel more than one
hundred miles to the place of trial; that tho
time of the court would be taken up for a num
ber of days and that the expense and incon
venience of a hearing so far from the residence
of respondent and his witnesses would work a
great hardship upon him, and asked that the
matter be referred ' to a court of competent
jurisdiction at Toledo.
During the hearing of this motion reference
was made to the fact that in the newspaper in
which respondent had criticised Judge Morris
there were criticisms of a like nature concerning
Judges Schauck and Price, who were then sitting
as members of the Ohio supreme court, before
whom it was proposed to try Mr. Thatcher; that
this fact would make it improper that the case
should be heard by that court.
It was then announced by a member of the
committee in "the presence of the full bench that
it was understood that Judges Schauck and Price
would not sit at the hearing. No dissent was
made to this statement.
The court refused to send the complaint back
to Toledo.
The case was called for trial in June, 1909,
with Judges Schauck and Price in the bench
and no notice to respondent or his counsel that
they intended to sit.
Nearly a week was occupied in taking evi
dence. Respondent sought to show the character
of the campaign that Judge Morris had made
in his own behalf and that the publication made
by respondent and Mr. Johnson was only an
effort to meet the same. The court refused to
receive proofs of these matters. On June 26,
1909, the court entered an order of disbarment,
basing its action on the publication made con
cerning Judge Morris and also on the fact that
respondent had filed affidavits 'of prejudice
against Judge Morris and had caused suit to be
brought on notes that the court found he knew
had been paid.
The statute of Ohio provides that affidavits of
prejudice could be filed against a judge by a
lawyer when the latter believed that such pre
judice existed.
Mr. Thatcher had exercised his statutory
right.
As to the suit on the notes, respondent con
tended that the same were not paid and that
the suit was still pending to collect on the notes
and no order should be made by the supreme
court until the case could be heard on its
merits. The supreme court refused to await
the determination of the case and on an ex parte
hearing, without the intervention of a jury,
made a finding that respondent ought not to
havo brought the suit.
The case on the notes has since been heard
on its merits and a verdict rendered finding
that the notes were not paid. The incongruous
condition exists of a verdict in favor of a plain
tiff in a' suit while the lawyer stands disbarred
for- having brought the case.
Mr. Thatcher defended his action in criticis
ing Judge Morris on the ground that he was
acting in his private capacity as a citizen in tak
ing part in a political campaign; had the con
stitutional right to indulge in free speech and
the publication of free press; that he had told
the truth; that it was not only his privilege but
his duty to make known the facts which he felt
showed the unfitness of the candidate to bo
elected to a judicial office; that a judge was no
more immune from criticism than any other
candidate for office; that if he had libeled Judge
Morris he was ready to respond in a civil or
criminal action but that the matter had nothing
to do with the practice of law.
The court held otherwise. At the heaTing
Ben W. Johnson voluntarily appeared as a wit
ness and testified that he had written many of
the articles published in the Judicial Reform
Bulletin, and, having the campaign of his
brother in charge, had censored all that Mr.
Thatcher had written before it was published.
The statute of Ohio provides that when it
shall come to the knowledge of any court that
a lawyer has probably been guilty of unpro
fessional conduct, the court shall cause pro
ceedings in disbarment to be brought.
Though Mr. Johnson openly stated in the
presence of the full bench of the supreme court
X)f the state of Ohio that he had participated in
all that was charged against Mr. Thatcher, no
'i
l--J V n. 4,
-.-, J-AloflfcJ
jv,;