Jeopardy of The Judiciary

If some of the persons who are announcing themselves as candidates for the Circuit Judgeships that are soon to be filled in this State, have any chance of election, we are in favor of the "recall" being applied to Judges.

But that is the only dire extremity that would induce us to favor that proposition.

We are amazed, and tremble for the Judicial Department of this government, when such fads as that can receive the passive endorsement of the Congress of the United States.

But this is only one other of the indications of the time, in what low esteem the Judiciary are being held. And when the people lose faith in this department of the government it is only one more step to the deluge.

What estimate the people have of the kind of man that should occupy the bench is shown by many of the samples they put there. What estimate of the qualifications that are essential to the bench is shown by the character of men who have the gall to aspire to it. What degree of respect, reverence, dignity, and independence we esteem to be due the bench is vividly and fearfully brought into the limelight by this latest fad, the "Recall."

Here are a few of the axiomatic reasons why "the recall" applied to the bench would destroy the Judiciary:

"Our ancestors fought for three centuries for our present judiciary system. Formerly judges were subject to recall by kings. One of the main questions settled by the English revolution of 1088 was that the people should have the right of appeal for protection to an independent tribunal of justice. We have had such tribunals ever since. Years of consecration and toil are imbedded in our jurisprudence, and constitute today the greatest of all guarantees for the perpetuity of our in

stitutions and the continued happiness and prosperity of the common people."

"For 2,000 years, no such provision has been made or even advocated until the present day. Such a law would destroy the independence of the judiciary. The independence of a judge is in an inverse ratio to the nearness of the time when he must again stand for election. The federal judges are well known to be more independent than the State judges and especialy than those judges who are chosen by election."

"Popular demands which would result in the recall of judges would in many instances be demands that set aside the constitutional guarantees. It practically places the power of adjudication in the majority of the voters, although the chief function of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority as represented in the legislatures."

"The recall would disco!!

attainments

from going upon the bench. No man qualified for a judge will place himself in a position where he must either decide a case contrary to his conscience or suffer the disgrace of a recall. The judge who is recalled on account of a corrupt decision will be placed on a par with one recalled because his decision was not pleasing to a majority of the voters."

"The most paltry being who slimes his way through the machinery of government is the judge who seeks to locate the popular side of a justiciable controversy."

"A feeble, timid, and obedient judiciary, whether to popular demand or king, has always in the end proved to be incompetent, a cruel or a corrupt judiciary. Such a judiciary leaves human rights uncertain and worthless, unsettles titles, destroys values, leaves the workman and the employer alike without protection or guidance, and has more than once demoralized or destroyed governments."

"Wherever in all history you find a dependent judiciary you will find that it is the man of limited means, the poor man, who suffers first and suffers most, the man who has not the wealth to purchase immunity, or the influence to command decrees."

"The man of limited means will always suffer in a contest with wealth and influence in such a court; instead of a trial, if he has a worthy cause, he will get demurrers, postponements, and that delay which in the end constitutes a denial of justice."

"If the voice of the majority controls, if this principle finally comes to be recognized in the timidity of judges, to what power in our government will the isolated, the unfortunate, the humble and the poor go for relief. Where will those without prestige, without wealth or social rank go for protection?"

"We owe it to ourselves and to posterity, to the institutions under which we live, and above all to the common people of this country to see to it that our judiciary is placed as nearly as human ingenuity can do so, beyond the reach or influence of any of the things which may cloud the mind with passion or fear or dull the conscience to the highest demands of even handed justice."

Wearing Clothes in Court

With characteristic western frankness, an Indiana Judge, who probably was presiding in a shirt-waist costume, remarked that "we know of nothing which requires a man to wear good clothes in order to practice law."

On this subject the Law Journal said:

"We believe that the wearing of robes by the Judges of this State is approved by a decided preponderance of professional sentiment. Although lawyers are also officers of the court, some of them try cases in clothes that no Judge would have had the

face to wear on the bench before the advent of the gown. While we would not advocate the adoption of robes by members of the bar, we do say that their attire when actually engaged in their professional office should not suggest that they are devoid of respect for the institutions of justice as well as of personal dignity and seriousness.

"In striking contrast with the external appearance of counsel before the Supreme Court of the United States it is not uncommon to see a lawyer stand up to address the court clad in a negligee shirt of violent tint, with no waistcoat, with trousers supported by a leather helt and rolled up at the bottom, with coat of loud pattern thrown wide open, and hands in the pockets. It would seen that a member of the bar who shows so little respect for himself could not have much respect for the law or its temple."

Our Share in The Panama Canal

Incidentally, and with any design of advertising West Virginia coal, Col. Goethals gave us a tip the other day, which is a most suggestive one, as to our interest in the Panama Canal. This tip occurs casually in an interview relative to running the canal when finished. Col. Goethals said in part:

"If we don't run the business end of the Canal, it will be administered by huge private interests which will effectually block our atempts to make the waterway a one-price institution. For the commercial possibilities are such as to tempt trust magnates quite as strongly as newly discovered gold-fields draw wild-eyed prospectors. There is a fortune to be made by the concern that gets and holds the upper hand in the matter of coaling stations on the Zone, and I want that 'concern' to be the United States. If we control the coal supply, we can offer at a reasonable, unchanging price the best grade of Pocahontas and New River coals and still make a profit. We are in the best position to run the coaling stations because, by experiments lasting over four years, we have found the grade of coal best

suited for use in the tropics-a question which has gone unsolved since steamships began to ply the waters within twenty degrees of the equator. In this particular grade of West Virginia coal the dampness during the rainy season causes less deterioration, and in the subsequent dry spells it has proved that spontaneous combustion is less likely to occur."

THE TORRENS SYSTEM.

As to the practical operation of the Torrens Law, Judge Davis of the Land Court of Massachusetts, in 1908, spoke as follows before the New York States Bar Association:

"The growth of new business has thus far shown a moderate but absolutely steady increase, both in the number of applications filed and in the assessed valuation of the property registered. In 1899 it was $626,000; in 1902, $1,991,000; 1907, $3,643,000. People who once apply for registration of title come back again. No suit has ever been brought against the Commonwealth, nor have I ever heard of any claim being suggested that anybody has ever been cut off from any right or interest in land during the ten yaers in which the land title registration act has been in operation. We have registered the titles to over $20,000,000 worth of property at assessed valuations and to a vastly larger amount of actual valuation as the same property stands today. We have some 8,000 instruments in existence in the metropolitan district alone. No claim, as I said, has been made, and no litigation of any kind has ever been brought that I have ever heard of by or against anybody because of his title having been registered. Nobody has been involved in any of those many theoretical difficulties which we have heard described because he has had a registered title. There has never been a suit, there has never been a petition, there has never been even a question as to the meaning of a single clause of the land registration act."

It is to be noted that this Torrens Law is practically the same in all states, and consequently an adjudication in Massachusetts would constitute a precedent for other states. But the law has also been tested in separate actions brought in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and California, where the highest court in each state has held this law to be constitutional and not open to attack.