The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-06-08
CHECKING AN EVIL.
Judge Sawyer's Objections to
Land Grabbers.
CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS,
Attorneys in Land Cases No Longer Eli.
gible to the ONCE Of United States
Commissioner.

There have been a great many i'm
proprieties practiced by some United
States commissioners in this state in con-
nection with land matters, many men
having secured appointments for the pur-
pose OF being able to take testimony and
act in judicial capacity in land cases in
which they were interested either as at
torneys or litigants. Both Judge SAWYER
and Judge Hanford are determined to
remedy this evil as far as lies in their
power, and number of commissioners
will have their appointments Cancelled.
The attention of Judge Sawyer was
called to these matters by letter written
him by Spokane man requesting the APP
pointment of certain land and pension
attorney to the Office of United States
commissioner. Judge Sawyer's answer
covers the question fully. In it he says:
Your letter expressing desire for the appoint
ment as commissioner of the United States Cir
cult court of -, date April q, 1891, has just
been received on my arrival at Helena.
AS a reason for desiring the Office you say he
frankly stated "that It would be a saving of time
to his many clients and also to himself, if he
could, IN his office, administer the oath required
IN Land and pension matters" In other words,
ne desires to make the Office OF commissioner an
accessory and appendage TO his bushes as at
torney for "land and pension claimants. The
ONCE was created for no such purpose. The
commissioner of the United States circuit court
is magistrate of the United States charged with
the execution, in part, of the national laws. He
is part of the national judiciary, exercising
judicial powers. He is part of the United
States circuit courtexerc;sing important judicial
functions At the la ST session of congress there
was added to his former powers the authority to
perform the judicial function of administering
oaths in certain proceedings for obtaining titles
to land, etc. But it was not intended to make
this authority an appendage TO the business OF
attorneys engaged in prosecuting land and
pension claims. The duties of such attorneys
seeking to advance the interests of their clients,
and the duties OF commissioners in performing
the judicial functions CT administering and
certifying the oaths required by law in the
prosecution and maintenance of such claims,
appears to me to be wholly inconsistent. sup
pose no commissioner would presume to act as
attorney either for the United States or
the defendant in q case of the issue and
prosecution before himself of warrant
of arrest for some public offense. If not, why
should he act both as attorney for the client and
as magistrate in the judicial part of the pro-
ceeding in the prosecution of land or pension
claim? can see no greater propriety in his SO
acting in the ono case than in the other-one part
is the of interested partisan an attorney for
of his client; while the other is that of magis-
trate representing the judicial branch of the
government, seeking no unfair advantages, and
who should be wholly without interest and abb
solutely impartial. fit is matter OF sufficient
importance TO the government to require oaths
to be administered by its judicial officers in
these proceedings to obtain titles to lands or
pensions, it is certainly important that these
oaths should be administered and authen-
ticated by representatives of the judicial
department of the government by officers
who have no interest or feeling in the
matter, and not by the attorneys, and, therefore,
partisans OF the parties to be benefited. The
two duties are manifestly inconsistent; one in
private and professional, in which the attorney
must feel personal pecuniary interest; the
other public and official, strictly judicial in its
character and requirements. We learn from the
good book that one ''cannot serve two masters"
With the views I entertain on this subject
cannot appoint your friend to the position for
the desired purpose. Indeed, were he a COM
missioner, and should he use his official posi-
ton for or pervert his Office to the desired pur-
poses, should, upon the fact coming to my no
tice, feel compelled to cancel his appointment
do rot wish to be regarded as censuring you
for writing the letter to which I am replying.
There seems TO be a very general nisapprehen-
sion on the part of the public as 20 this matter.
The dignity and judicial character and impor-
lance OF the United States circuit ecuyt commits.