The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-03-07
THE SACHS TRIAL.

Although the vote in the legislature on
the trial of Judge Sachs failed to effect his
removal, that officer was not justified in
claiming it as yindication. The vote of
81 in favor to IA against his removal, in
the House, and the tie vote of IL to is in
the Senate. cannot be construed otherwise
than as being strongly condemnatory of
the course pursued by the judge.
There is no reason for supposing that the
people at large regard his case more leni-
emily than did the legislature, nor that
among them the preponderance of opin-
ion against his actions is less pronounced
than would be represented by the joint
vote of the two houses. Such being the
facts, II Judge Sachs were not impervious
to shame as he has been reckless of pro-
priety and healthy public opinion, he
would resign.
It was proven that since his elevation to
the bench it has been his frequent. if not
habitual practice, to patronize games con-
Quoted in violation of law, whose conduct
ors were liable to prosecution in his court
and before him for such violations. About
such degradations OF his high office; such
soiling ofthe judicial ermine, there is no
room for diversity Of opinion. Such, evil
IDENTIFY, was the view taken by many of
the leading and most respectable citizens
Of his district who appeared against him
and demanded his removal.
On this statement there may and doubt
less will be surprise that there were SO
many, or any votes in the legislature
against his removal. or that there is any
diversity OF public opinion in regard to it.
That such was and is the case might I'M
less explained create false impression
abroad and damage the reputation of the
state.
But the probable reason is not hard to
find. Judge Sachs was duly nominated
for and by popular vote elected to the
Office which he holds. His habits now are
in no respect different from what they
were before he was nominated and elected.
The people of his district, or large pro-
portion of them, were perfectly familiar
with the fact. They nominated and
elected him in full knowledge of his charac-
ter and habits. While it is undeniable that
even though these were his habits before
election. and sense of propriety should
have prompted him to discontinue them
afterwards. there has been neither evidence
nor intimaticn that any of those who sup
ported him for the Office made any such
demand or request as a condition of their
support.
In this view may be found plausible
ground for division of sentiment in regard
to his removal. The people who elected
him have no sufficient ground for being
shocked or surprised. He is precisely the
man that they picked out and elected.
They are not wronged by the presumption
that this is just the kind of judge they
wanted. Otherwise they had no right to
shirk their duty as citizens, allow such a
man to be foisted upon them, and then
seek TO throw upon the legislature the
onus Of his removal.
The lesson is good one. 1t is to be
hoped that it will not be wasted. 1t is to
be hoped that the application of it will not
be confined to Port Townsend. 1t should
teach the people of the whole state to per-
form at every step their full duty as
citizens, and not only in respect to the
Judiciary. but in the selection of all public
officers pay due regard to considerations
of capacity, fitness, morals and habits.
Then the humiliation of this Sachs trial
will have had its compensations.