fflF?yfijgm,m jgi"'
DECEMBER Z9, IfYl
The Commoner.
JUDGES FOR RECALL OF. JUDGES
Exp
ressidhs of Opinion from a Number of Well Known TurW nn R.ll f A- T...i::
j 0 vvhii v ujv. juuiv.juiy
. uaiirorma
recentlv fldnnforl fliM ntttn4-t..
referendum and recall, Including the judiciary.
5?S Jhe camPaign the California Outlook
published at Los Angeles, printed the following:
Many of the anxious friends of the judiciary
are rushing to their defense in the matter of
the recall of judges. That this is in great
measure "love's labor lost" is evidenced by the
opinions of some of the prominent jurists of
southern California on this subject. Many are
the members of tho bench who see nothing in
herently wrong in the proposal to make the
recall of judges a part of this state's constitu
tion. That the judge who does his duty need
nave no fear of the recall is made plain by the
views given below:
Superior Court Judge, W. A. Sloane, San
Diego County: "The whole recall proposition
is based upon the fact that the people are the
ultimate judges of what is good for them. They
place a man in official position, and have a right
to make it a condition of his tenure of office
that he may be removed by a majority vote if he
fails to make good.
"As to the argument that the independence
and fair deliberation of the courts would be
destroyed or materially affected by the fear of
the recall, I do not believe it. Cowardice in the
lino of duty is not an American characteristic.
An upright, honest judge would be stimulated
by the existence of the recall provision to a
closer scrutiny of his own motives in dediding
JSTOP' D?fore hIm t0 avoId even the suspicion
that he was influenced by mere public-sentiment."
Judge N. P. Conrey, superior court, Los
Angeles county: "I think that the people of our
state never would use the recall to change the
complexion of a court for the purpose of affect
ing its decisions upon any subject. It would
only be used in those unusual instances where
personal unfitness has made the officer con
spicuously unworthy of public confidence" or
respect.
' "Our voting population is not a mob. I can
not perceive that it would be possible, in a free
and enlightened state, for the people to vote
in favor of ousting judges from office in order
to force a court to change its decision upon any
question of either fact or law."
Judge James C. Rives, superior court, Los
Angeles county: "There is nothing inherently
wrong in the proposal, and nothing as far as I
can see which conflicts with the principles upon
which our government is founded. The power
which a judge wields comes from the people.
The people have the right to take it away from
those who may be deemed unfit.
". "A real enactment, coupled with a tenure of
office during good behavior, seems to me to be
the logical way to apply the principle. It would
remove the bench from the stress of politics,
and would mean security to the judge as long
as he fills his office efficiently and conscien-oMo-;'
Curtis D. Wilbur, judge of superior court,
Los Angeles county: "I am in favor of vest
ing in the people of the state of California the
right to recall judges,
"First Because it accords in theory with
that' fundamental declaration upon which this
government is based; namely, that governments
derive all just powers from the consent of those
governed.
"Second Because the people of California
have demonstrated to their own satisfaction that
they are to be trusted with the selection of
judges, and are unwilling to return to an ap
pointive system.
"Third Because the right .of recall would
make the. people more willing to entrust judges
W.lth certain powers necessary to the better
administration of justice, which are now wlth-
"Fourth Because the powor of recall would
probably remove the objection now existing to
long terms for the judiciary, and there would
be less danger than at present of efficient judges
being ousted for purely political or partisan
reasons."
would bo of any disadvantage to tho Judiciary.
There Is much to be said on both sides of tho
question, but, on tho wholo, I think a recall
law which would include judges would work
out all right.
"I do not think that the right of tho peoplo
to recall at any time would in any way interfere
with the freedom of tho judge. If ho goes
straight ahead with his work and does it as well
as ho can, there will bo little to fear from tho
people."
George H. Hutton, presiding judge, superior
court, Los AngeleB county: "I share with
President Taft, an inclination to use violent
language when I reflect on the methods and
procedure in vogue in the courts of our state
and union. In many cases they are relics of
the seventeenth-century procedure and tend to
magnify technicalities and minimize justice.
"T believe that the cure for this procedure
lies largely in the judges themselves and tho
most likely way to bring about that cure is to
invoke recall, under somewhat stricter condi
tions than will apply to public officers in
general.
"There is no divine right of judges by which
they should bo allowed to judicially rule a
country. The power .of a judge, like a stream,
can not (except by a'fttficial means) rise above
its source, and the source of tho judge's power
is the will of the majority and when the will of
the majority Is withdrawn his power is and by
.right ought to be, withdrawn.
"I firmly believe, that when the people give
a matter so serious as the mental or moral fit
ness or unfitness of a judge, their sober second
thought, that the people are to be "trusted to
decide it rights and until they are to be so
trusted, our dream of 'a government of the
people, for the people and by the people' will
never come true."
Judge Gavin W. Craig, superior court, Los
Angeles county: "I do. not think tho recall
"A DANIEL COME TO JUDGMENT"
Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, addressing a gather
ing representative of the financial and Industrial
interests of tho country, and including J. P.
Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller,
jr., and other leaders of so-called "big business"
in the United States, recently in the Waldorf
Astoria sounded a warning against the tendency
of the day to lawlessness.
The occasion, was the one hundred and forty
third banquet of tho chamber of commerce.
Seated on either side of President A. Barton
Hepburn were James Bryce, British ambassa
dor; Senator Elihu Root, J. Pierpont Morgan,
Rabbi Wise, Rt. Rev. David H. Greer, Governor
John A. Dix, General Frederick .D. Grant,
Thomas A. Edison, Andrew Carnegie, Chauncey
M. Depew, St. Clair McKelway, Governor Em
met O'Neal, of Alabama; Mayor Gaynor, Alfred
Mosoley, General Horace Porter, James J. Hill
and Rear Admiral Robert E. Peary.
Speaking to the topic "The Conscience of the
Nation," Rabbi Wise said he was not unmindful
that.in the. .assemblage were some who, "like the
notorious Lord Melbourne', are afraid that 'this
damned morality will ruin everything,' " but
urged ,that "the newly quickened conscience of
tho nation demands that business, which has
become too largely impersonal, needs to be re
personalized, and that articles of incorporation
are not to be offered as a substitute for the man
dates of the decalogue." He continued.
"Instead of ceaseless and senseless clamor
against the department of law at Washington,
we are to see to it that our business be so
regulated and administered that it shall not
be- in constant collision with the law. In a
word, the nation and commerce must cease to
war upon each other, but they can only co
operate upon the basis of the government's
inflexible insistence upon the supremacy of the
law, however inconvenient and unprofitable be
conformity thereto, and the acquiescence of com
merce in tho ideal of obedience to tho spirit as
well as the letter of the law, lest too, spoliation
by the few be at last replaced by expropriation
by the many.
"One of the tendencies against which the
American people must battle earnestly and
steadfastly is the tendency to lawlessness, as
dangerous to our democracy today as tho Greeks
believed it to be twenty-five hundred years ago.
"We must do battle against the anarchy of
lynching, against the anarchy of "endless homi-
cidism, against tho anarchy which inheres in tho
not loss deadly homicides that aro tho daily
incidents of Industry.
"Not only Is democracy Incompatible with tho
violent lawlessness of tho Inflamed nnd un
reasonable, but with tho lawlessness of techni
cal conformity with tho letter and actual viola
tion of tho spirit of tho law. LawlossnciHs In
not less menacing when It clothos Itself In tho
forms of law. Tho practlso of tho law 1fnot
to bo a shield and covert for lawlesa practMoa.
Tho ends of justice aro too ofton defeated by
moans of tho law. There Is llttlo to ehoono
botweon tho anarchist .who believes In tho break
ing of the law bocauso It is law, and bocauso
all laws are oppressive, and tho lawlessness
which breaks tho law bocauso It Is unjust. Tho
one honestly aims at Justlco without law and
the roally lawloss anarchist Is the man of plaoo
and powor who ainod at law without juHtlco."
Now York American.
ECHOES OF 11)01
Columbus, 0., Dec. 18, 1911. Editor Com
moner: Tho editorial statement of tho Wall
Street Journal, quoted In tho Commonor of
Nov. 10th, that tho Interests (therein called tho
"buslnoss community") controlled tho election
in 1908 and that Mr. Taft owed IWb oloctlon to
them Is absolutely true. Tho reason, however,
assigned by the Journal for their intervention
covertly hides the true ono and doos not stato
tho wholo truth. It says: "If President Taft
was stronger than his party in 1908 It was bo
cause tho business community gavo him their
confidence. Tho alternative was Mr. Bryaj -nd
Mr. Bryan's policies, which it was not bolfovcd
President Taft would adopt." Tho Intorcsts
took fright when Mr. Bryan said to President
Roosevelt: "Show mo a trust officer or dlroctor
who is supporting rao, and I will Inform him
that I will, If elected, enforce tho penal sections
of tho Sherman anti-trust law against him."
That statement In my judgment, was decisive of
the election. From that time on tho intorcsts
got busy. Mr. Rockefeller camo out for Taft
and tho interests made up a largo part of tho
campaign fund, which Hitchcock sworo
amounted to over $1,700,000, contributed, as
the list shows, almost entirely by trust officers,
directors or beneficiaries. The nowspapora
stato that when the United States marshal served
the summons in tho United States company
dissolution suit upon Mr. Carnegie, the latter
gave the marshal an autographed photograph as
a souvenir, that Mr. Morgan received him gruffly
without comment, and that Mr. Rockefeller, 1r.,
greeted him With, "I am glad to see you." How
different would have been his reception if ho
had gone after them with a warrant of arrest!
In answer to Mr. Bryan, President Roose
velt replied that Judge Henry S. Priest of St.
Louis was for his (Bryan's) election. What
hyprocrisy! Judge Priest on his return from
Europe had replied to a reporter that he was
a democrat and expected to voto for Mr. Bryan.
He was acting as attorney for Plerco of tho
Waters-Pierce Oil Co., a subsidiary of the Stand
ard Oil company, endeavoring to defeat the
efforts of tho state of Texas In Its attempt to
take Pierce back to the state In order to try
him for violating the anti-trust law of that
state. Roosevelt would have Mr. Bryan'n state
ment Include the imprisonment of tho ..&ifete
dant's attorney for his client's- .criminal act'. If
the attorney should be compelled to go to Jail
along with his client upon the latter receiving
sentence, the business of tho criminal lawyer
would surely be extra-hazardous.
The Journal also correctly says that the in
terests decided tho election of 1896, it might
also add that of 1900. The railway companies
of the country were as effective in 189G in secur
ing our defeat on account of the anti-Injunction
plank as were the banks. The will of the peoplo
was stifled in both these campaigns by the use
of tho interest's boodle.
In the present state of tho public mind it Is
to be hoped that the democratic party shall not
be compelled in 1912 to try over again the
disastrous experiment of 1904, that of nominat
ing a candidate to please the Interests. If it
should, the verdict against It will be even more
pronounced. JOHN C. L. PUGH.
00
WILL YOU JOIN IN THE EFFORT TO
INCREASE THE COMMONER'S
CIRCULATION FOR 1912?
TAKE IT UP AT ONCE WITH YOUR
' NEIGHBOR. 0
0
I
4
m
i
.
i
A-
yillg
kiu.-
iJbu3mldLMite&
