Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-09-02
judges AND KAILxoAD PASSES.
American Law Review.

American Law Review.
Our comments in previous number,
on the practise of judges accepting ia
vors from railroad companies In til,
shape of passes appear To have excited
considerable interest, and il is evlden
that the people and the bar are yer,
FESTIVE under the idea that judges, who
ought to be entirely impartial in re0arC
TO the suitors before them, should b<
the recipients of secret favors from a
particular class of those suitors. The
impropriety of this practise Is SO clear
that 1t Is not debatable; though there
may be, of course, special circumstances
which would excuse it. Among the let
ters whicn our observations on this
practise have called forth, We print the
following from a reputable practitioner
in WISCONSIN:
TO those of "a who believe tina.
judges should be like Caesars wife, the
general custom of judges accepting
passes causes feeling of shame. 1t is
always humiliating when a judge takes
bride, and it Is no less exeus able be-
cause it Is customary, or because given
by transportation company and re-
ceived by a judicial officer. Bribery is
bribery. Custom has been from time
immemOrial the threadbare excuse of
all officers who receive illegal fees or
receive brides. In Wisconsin there are
about eighty eight judges, every one of
whom, | am informed, accepts brides in
the shape of railroad passes. One of
our most prominent judges told me that
he had declined passes for long tune.
but that all the other judges, including
the justices of the Supreme curt and
the Judges of the United States burts,
accepted them, and he concluded it was
mere s1ueamishness on his part, and
that he finally accepted them. The
custom is more than indecent; il is
scaud ilous. The me tRernesso of judges
salary Is no excuse for his accepting
brides; il Is not even mitigating cir
cumstance. A solicitor for one of our
largest railroads informed me that his
road sent passes TO every judge in every
State where his road ran, and that only
three had been returned that year, and
l regret to say not one out of the three
was a Wisconsin judge. Can aAy one
doubt that 1t has Its effect? Is it not
Wholesale bribery and corruption2
Very truly yours,
"A LAWYER"
There is a bit of history connected
with the above letter, which adds a
pointed comment to the letter itself.
When we received the letter We replied
to the writer. requesting the privilege
of publishing bis name as the author of
it. TINS he declined, for the reason that
he could not jeopardize his own stand
ing before the Wisconsin courts, and
the interests of his clients
before those courts. by printing his
name to a statement which he insists
upon as being the undoubted truth. At
the same time he put Us in possession OF
statements and references which lead us
to believe that, while the charge made
against the judges of Wisconsin eener-
ally may be too sweeping in its chsrac-
ter, yet in reference to many of them it
is true. The point is, that here is a
practise SO odious that reputable men,
Der of the bar, knowing the facts COR
oerning it, dare not publish them over
his own signature, for fear of losing
his standing and influence before the
courts.
1t has become the fashion in these
days to look with real or affected suspi-
cion upon anything which emanates
from any official connected with rail-
road company. Wesuppose it Is hardy
necessary to say that the business of
railroad is neither an immoral
nor an unlawful occupation, nor an oc-
cupation which is opposed to a sound
public policy. Ths occupation itself
being lawful and honest, the possibility
that honest men may be connected with
it may occur to persons who think calmly
and dispassionately. Nay. little fair
minded reflection may suggest the query
whether this busiEess of the giving of
railroad passes to judges may not. in
stead of deserving the opprobrious name
of bribery, deserve the more opprObri-
ous name of blackmail. The truth. Nm
in the great majority of cases,
ia that these favors to judges are not
rendered by railroad com.
panies, but ars solicited by or on behalf
of the judges themselves, and are given
by the companies b cause they canaot
afford to incur the i'll will of Influential
public men. who are not ashamed to de
nand and receive them. No one, we
firmly believe. would more gladly see
the practise broken up than the railroad
companies themselves. 1t diminishes
their earnings by compelling them to
carry gratuItously a class of persons
VINO nece ssarily have to ride great deal
upon their roads, and who would other
wise have to paw fare. 1t violates that
D inc pile of equality that duty of serv.
ing the public equa!iy-whieh is one of
the strongest obligations which tue Law
puts upon a common carrier. A general
public knowledge of it subjects the rail-
road companies to "a public odium which
is far more injurious to them than any
benefits which they receive through the
comforting of such gratuities. The
trainers Of the present constitution of
Missouri endeavored to put an end to
the practise by Incorporating into that
instrument the following provision:
"No railroad or other transportation
company shall grant free passes or tick
cts, or passes or tickets At a discount, t.
members of the General Assembly. or
menbers of the Boz I'd of Equaliz .tion.
or any State or county or municipal Of
ficers; and the acceptance of such pass
or ticket by a member of the General
Assembly, or any such officer, shall be a
forfeiture of his olfics"
This provision embodies the most Sc
we're denunciation of the practise watch
We have ever seen. Ii is believed to be
10 some extent a sad letter in Missouri.
Ii Is supposed by some that it is not self
enforcing, and that legislation is needed
tn give effect to il. Efforts have been
made to en- tct such legislation, but they
have been defeated through the personal
int Fest of msmt era Of tae Legislator,
who we're themselves the recipients of
these favors. IL Is believed that, SO far
as judicial officers are concerned, the
provision is self enforcing. Il has all
the elements of penal law. IL prohib-
its the do ne of an oct. and declares a
penalty for the doing of the act. A
court of impeachment would unques-
tionably have power 20 remove any
Judge who should become the recipient
of railroad passes in violation of this
provision.