Arizona weekly citizen., 1890-02-01
As Others See them.

ED. 'GITIZEN. The 3TlLOud 0dL6lOSi since the hearing of Cheyney vs- Smith by the Supreme Court, has in its earnest effort to thwarJ justice, embarrass the judges. and in a vain effort to keep up a "whistling courage, found new''mare's nest" in the fact that Sub. div. r., Sec. 1, Act No. @, approved April 10th, 1889 provides that Sl200 year shall be paid to each of the three several judges. The Cheyney vs.Smith case is mandamous proceeding. tho determination of which is the determination of that provision ol the Act of Congress limiting the legisla- ture to sixty days duration. On the ore hand the "unwashed," headed by Ben Goodrich. claims that it means sixty ''consecutive days," and as soon as the legislature met the time commenced to run regardless of whether the legislature was subsequently, actually in session or not; he likened it to sort of self acting convoluted windmill, that, by reason by pair of Congressional bellows, could not stop blowing on the one hand and running on the other after being started for sixty days. Sundays and the late lamented Georges birthday included.
 The law. the logic, and the facts W ere all against him upon the proposition un- der consideration, and, although good lawyer. he had to contend himself with "s.ashing" around in an effort that can not by any strech of the imagination be dignified by the word argument. On the other hand Attorney General Churchill re-enforced his argument that sixty days meant sixty working days" ,days in which the assembly was III actual session. by coplous citation of many authorities n pont; Tn Tact any one who listened to the discussion must nave been impressed with the thought that any other interpretation of the Congressional Act could only find lodge ment in the vacant upper story or an office leech in possession.
 The Gazette now comes again smiling ly to the front and sententionsly asks, are the judges who are hearing this case of Cheney vs. Smith interested m the decision, if not. why not"
 We say not. and for the reason that It does not follow that because the judges are called to pass upon the validity or statute in one regard. as in this case, they are Drecluded from so doing by reason of the further fact that in one item of appropriation their salary IS fix ed. We would direct the attention of parties feeling an interest in the matter to the fact generally known, that 1t has not infreaucntly happened that appro-
 4h-n.1rrh lnG1Cl9fFVn assemblies carrying with them other ap- nended obiectional laws. These bills aroyide for the judges salaries. 1t never before has been and never can ce successfully ccntended, that the Judges are incompetent to sit in judgment upon any specified feature of such legislation because it included the item of their pay as judges.
 In the case of W. Bonnet vs. the state, 1 Texas, Court of Appeals, the court aeid that ho' the constitution provides that no judge shall sit in any cause wherein lie may be interested, the fact that the judge's compensation in 8 mls- demeanor case Is a fee to be paid 1T con yicted does not disgualify the judge from trying such case. in that case, as here, it was contended that the judge was ln- ia-as.ed in the result, but the court Of last ren9rt thought differently.
 The right or power of the legislature to p:y the judges 5I200 per annUm may at some future time be Iaised: if so, we imagine no court will hold that finding bv them upon the question under con sideratica in this case, will be consider ed as being "fesiudicate."
 Judges GO not sit Ic eases where they are personally interested, and are not doing SC now. Their duties are pre- scribed by statute, and under the law II IS their sworn duty to hear and determ- inc Cheney vs. Smith; they cannot evade nor shirk their duty under tbe plea that in construing the validity of certain ac- tioG of the legislature as to time, the operative effects of so doing may at some future time in some degree affect an in terest personal to themselves.
 It ig 8 sad and regretahle fact in this whole matter that these Democrats first demanded of Woifey. hands of, let the courts settle the question: We'll, when brought into court, they tried at the last moment, by tTickery, to eVade 8 hearing: so much so, that the court felt called upon ts. in effect, tell them they must stop "mCnkeSing. They have been driven from one subteTfuge to an other until it is positively pitIful to watch their shifting, shutiing, evaslve, lying ways, and we do sincerely hope :hay will eat the crow they richly de serve tO eat in dEe timC.
 REPUBLICAN.