The Arizona sentinel., 1875-06-26
DISREGARD OF JUDICIAL PRO-
PRIETIES.


18th and would commend it to
the earnest consideration of all
true Americans, without regard
to religious belief:
The San Francisco Monitor of
the 22d and 18th of May contains
what purpOrts to be verbatim
report of a public address deliver
ed at tucson, the capital of AriZO-
ma, on the I'd of February, by E.
F. Dunno, Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of the Territory,
denouncing the Common School
system, and cOndemning the ac-
ton of the Territorial Legislature
in defeating a bill to give the Ca
tholic Schools a part of the money
raised for the Common Schools.
This report is doubtless correct,
for it is published by friendly
journal, to which the author pro-
baby sent it, directly or indirect
ly. If correct, the report should
SECURE the dismissal of Judge
Dunno from his place, or of any
other official who. while occupy
ing a similar position, delivers a
similar address. 1t is not becom-
ing that a person occupying a ju-
dicial station should in a public
speech denounce legislative Act,
upon which he may be called up
ON to pronounce judgement in
his official capacity. His conduct
is wrong, whether his view of
the question under consideration
be sound; he should not confound
advocacy with Jugdeship. The
expression which would be passed
without n office when it comes from
private citizen, may be serious
offence in a Judge.
In the present instance the
Judge not only becomes an adj
vocate, but he takes the side
which it is least becoming for a
Judge to take. The nation has
considered this question careful
ly, and has decided it in all the
States which have a we'll estab-
lished system of common schools.
He puts himself in opposition to
the dominant sentiment of the
country. It is part of the un-
written Constitution of the Unit
ed States that common schools
shall be maintained, and that any
such division of the school fund
as that proposed by Judge Dunno,
would be, if not fatal, at least
very pernicious to them. The
following are Judge Dunne's
main propositions as stated in his
own language:
Aud NOW, ladies and gentlemen. let US
come to the question. We, that is, those
for whom now Argue, maintain
First-That the State has no right to
teach religion.
Second-That the State has no right to
teach irreligiOn.
Third-That the State has no inner ent
right to teach at all.
Now, l do not deny that the questions
raised are the most serious ones that were
ever proposed to the making power
of any State.
The first and second propositions
are merely put in merely as an
introduction to the third one,
since the public schools do not
undertake to teach religion in
manner offensive to anybody /;
and the last proposition is the
main one. Judge Dunno denies
the right of the State to provide
for the education of the children
within its limits, and we suppose
that if the question should ever
come before him as a Judge, he
would like to decide in accord
ance with that view. This is, we
imagine, enough to show that
Judge Dunno should be permit
ted to retire to private life, where
he can speak his sentiments with
out violating the proprieties of
his station.
We had occasion to speak of this
matter before, and to denounce
the miserable Jesuitical emissary
who, coming here clothed with
the judicial functions of Chief
Justice, soiled his ermine by most
diabolical attempt to influence the
Legislature to grant money to the
support of sectarian schools. His
address, above referred to, should
damn him to eternal infamy. And
we do not say this because he is a
Catholic. We would say the
same if he was a Presbyterian,
Methodist or anything else. The
man who, influenced by sectarian
bias, occupying high judicial
position, uses his voice and inf1u-
ence to overthrow the very foun-
datiOn of our free institutions, and
to raise in its stead his own rotten
fo hrio whose n iCforv 10 yUrittop