OCR Text |
Show RECALL OF JUDGES IN UTAH. t, i ji. Senator Moses E. Clapp, who spoke to a great audience in San if 'Francisco last night, denounced President Taft for attempting to bribe the people of Arizona with an offer of statehood if they H would drop the recall. J On this same subject, the Salt Lake- Tribune says: ji "If Arizona wishes to recall her judges, that has nothing to do ,. with the people of Utah, and the peoplo of Utah have nothing to '; do with, that recall. Every state should conduct its internal aff airs i r to suit itself ;and there is no reason why one state should get ex- I J cited about what another state wishes to do with regard to the tc- i.'t ' call of its judges, or anything else for that matter, so long as the -w constitutional requirement is preserved, that the people arc assured fi a republican form, of government. y, "But, aside from tho proposed popular recall of judges, which H ': is allowed in Oregon,, and is about to be allowed in California, and H 'i which the peoplo of Arizona proposed lo allow, there is already a 2 l ' form of recall in the constitutions of a considerable number of H 'ftf I states, Utah included, which, in our judgment, is far worse than H! K i the provision for the popular recall of a judge. We refer to the re- H h call which is provided for in section 11, article 8. of the consti- Hi '; tution of Utah, which provides for the removal of judges by the Hj concurrent vote of both houses of the legislature, two-thirds of each Hl house concurring. According to this provision, there need be no B 1 charges against any judge, there need be no allegation that he has Hjr'. done anything wrong, or that he is unfit in character, learning, or HJ1 temperament, to be a judge. The legislature, through any whim, I impulse, or political motive, can remove the judge by concurrent 1 vote as provided, without any reason assigned, isow, wc had in hi this state last winter a legislature so subservient to the Federal HK ; bunch, that it was openly stated on the floor of the House in re- M: I j spect to liquor legislation, that what was styled 'the official bill' B had not been received by tho legislature from those who were sup- H posed to be preparing it (meaning the Federal bunch), but that B when it did appear it would be kown by its earmarks. It did ap- H3 ' pear j it was known by its earmarks, and was promptly passed. Now H ' a legislature like that, endowed with the power, to recall a judge Hl ' b3' a two-thirds vote in each House is a dangerous menace to the Hl public integrity and welfare. There can be no doubt but that if any ff Democratic judge had been in office in this state, either on the V District or Supreme bench, that judge would have been recalled by H; the legislature at the crook of the big boss' finger. If that boss H" had any suit, or if any interest of his had been involved in a court 1 presided over by a Democrat, there would have been no doubt but 1 that he would have desired the movement of that Democrat, and 8 that the legislature would have promptly removed the judge at his H behest. This sort of recall we consider to be immeasurably more B' perilous to the people and to the judiciary than the recall by the H' people. For-, a legislature can be handled secretly, can be bossed H' quietly,; it can receive its orders, and no ono except those in- Htj volved know where those orders come from, and such a legislature Hl ' as we had last winter will obey those orders relentlessly and in a H subservient manner impossible in the people at large. The whole BL can be a dark-lantern procedure so far as any avowed purpose or ar- HK , gument is concerned. H "It would be infinitely better, in our judgment, to have the re- j ' call by the people than to have such a legislative recall as we have Vj in Utah, and as many of the states have iu the same form. For, if H a judge" is lo be recalled by popular vote, there must bo a reason H assigned 'publicly for that recall; and the popular judgment would Hr have to be taken on the sufficiency of that reason. There must be H a campaign, there must be a showing made, there must be a rca- B son. urged against the judge for the recall, if the people .arc asked H to recall him. Here everything can be done quietly without any H reason assigned, without any motive urged; the secret blow can be H struck without warning, without argument, without possibility of 1 real defense. It is indeed surprising to see that those who oppose K the recall of judges sit down so quietlyl under these constitutional 1' provisions for the recall of judges by the legislature; and make so a much fuss about popular recall. L "Ki.it be urged that the legislature is not likely to recall judges R ' under that provision, and that no recall has ever actually been ef- B fcctciL the samo reply is ready for the popular recall. No case of B recalliner a iudee bv popular vote is on record. If it is said that ' no legislature has ever recalled a judge, it can be just ,as truly said ' that the people haVc never recalled a judge, though four cases of legislative recall arc recorded in New Hampshire. If it is said that the power to recall a judge by the legislature ought to exist, so that it could be applied in extreme cases, the reply is, that if such a recall is necessary at all it ought lo be done by die people, and not by the legislature. For a popular recall is open, public, on rea-. sons given; whereas a legislative wcall may be, and probably would be, secret, partisan, indefensible on public grounds, and for a malign or unworthy purpose." |