Waterbury Democrat., 1901-05-13
APPOINTING JUDGES.
Various Opinions as to the Best Meth
 of Selecting Them.

is important all around that we should have good judicial officers in all our courts, but so long as the appointments are controlled by any man or set of men so long will our judges be open to suspicion. At present the judges on the higher bench and the superior court bench are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. In the lower courts, as is we'll known, the republicans hold a caucus, and the caucus nominee, as a matter of course, goes through the senate and the house without a hitch, unless the nominee is so notorious for one reason or another that the legislative body is nauseated. Perhaps there has been no significant ly bad nomination by the governor, though one might not be far from the mark if he should say that some of them have smelled too strongly of the great corporation.
 How could it be otherwise with the system in vogue? In all likelihood the governor himself owns it's stock or his friends are largely interested in it, Maybe its large stockholders, it's di- rectors and ct ccetiyx officers are per sonally frieLaIy wlll the executive, have contributed to tie fund which se- cured his nomination e;r election, dined and wined with him 4nd his family; are socially intimate-hil their relations really one The Best Attorneys in the state are tts couLfei; they advise. counsel with and A d the executive in every important matter or state. What important republican interest for many years came beso-e he executive in Connecticut for e-ssses n which the Hon Henry c. Rctirg-ss s.iu not have the ear of the eyecc 6W What im- portant political <E~ement regarding republican politics 10 which the Hon Samuel Fessenden and the Hon Lynde Harrison did not aid and advise and assist the executive?
 Every judicial appointment in Con- nectfcut is of immense consequence to the Consolidated road. Hundreds Of thousands of dollars are claimed every year as damages from this. company. Who has shaped the legislation of this state so that judges alone try without a jury all of those cases where the railroad interests are involved? Ours is the only state in the Union where this is permitted. In questions of dam- ages in England, where all our common law comes from, and in every state ln the Union but Connecticut, a jury as- sesses the damage. For years there has been an effort made at almost every session of the general assembly to restore the common law practice in Connecticut and allow juries to try these cases, but every time Mir Rob lnsOn, MT Robbins, attorney for the New England road, MT Harrison, MT Fessenden and every other lawyer about the state who is regularly re- fafned by the Consolidated, has been there is opposition. They do not say when they appear before the commit tee that they come as attorneys for the Consolidated, but they talk out in meeting as though they were in the interest of the people, and the bill, resolution or petition has been knocked out every time. Once or twice the house has passed the measure, but when it came to the senate there were only twenty-four of them, and when the Consolidated has only twenty-four to deal with, and hundred lawyers here and there and everywhere to give these twenty-four disinterested advice, the twenty-four are usually persuaded, or at least majority of them.
 Now, let us look at the other side. One of the people has case, we'll say against the Consolidated. He has been mangled through the carelessness of some of it's servants, usually on a railroad. His case gets into court and be appears with one or two witnesses
 
 the accident happened On the other hand. four or five brakemen, the con- ductor, engineer and fireman come for ward and give their testimony What is the result2 Well, have heard the lawyers say great many times that a train crew can be relied upon to tell the company's side of a case every time in such a way none of them was to blame Which of these two is going 10 succeed? The poor man, without friends, without money, represented by poor lawyer, for he cannot afford to hire high priced one, or the com pany with enormous wealth. the best lawyers in the land, before a tribunal which in all human probability receives It's appointment at the solicitation, or with the advice, or consent, or at least without any opposition because of the friendly interest of the big corpora tions
 Does not such q tribunal stand in fear of the mighty influence such n corporation wields2 Now, if instead Of all this the judicial appointments were to come from the people is there any question but that the citizens of tonnecueut would nominate and elect good men, and is it not reasonable to believe that relieved from the whip whichrn n few men must necessarily wield under the present system. our judges would be freer men than they can be under existing conditions? or course there would be some politics in the method of selecting judges which ] am advocating, but are they not and have they not been political offices for great many years in ConnectIcut7 And although it is true that once a man reaches the bench In the higher courts of this state politics are moi supposed to influence his action. vel iii Is quite notorious among the lawyers that the man who has dfued and Eined. who has been socially and po lltically hobnobbing with the man on the bench prior to his appointment. is very anxious to get all of his cases tried before his old time political asso- eiate, and every term, in every court. fhe lawyers on the one side and the other strive to get their cases on or off because the man on the bench is a po- ltical friend or otherwise.
 There are remedies for this. but Pm afraid we'll have to get along without 4hem- One is to have the judges elect ed by the people and the other is to sresrore the common law practice i'm r Connecticut and let Juries assess dam ages.