Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-02-27
JUDGES AND PASSES.

JUDGES AND FASSES,
The bill now before the Legislature
Of Utah, making II a felony for judges
10 receive free passes from railroads, 10
an extreme measure and ought 10 be
closely examined, both as to rs object
and 10 the motives which led to It's pres
entatlon.
The idea that no one can receive n
courtesy from an Individual or a COM
pany or corporation, without being i'm
properly influenced thereby, is terrible
reflection upon every person who has
accepted such favor as well as upon
the grantor thereof.
There may be objections against the
Issuance Of passes for transportation,
admission 10 theaters and other places
OF recreation. and to special favors gen.
orally. But nevertheless the custom ex-
lists, and is continued In spite Of all the
arguments made against It. People
have the right TO both give and take
when they choose or can, providing II
10 done legitlmately and attempts
to ourtaIl that liberty will always be
resented or eyaded
We would be very sorry to think that
city councillors and other municipal Of
ilcials, would suffer themselves TO be
hriha1 hv fho opoantan,a 80 a ,t.o,t
railroad pass. That legislators would
be swayed In their euty to the people
by free transportation, rendered 70
them by q railway company. And that
judges and State officers would betray
any trust imposed upon them by the
public, because Of an annual or trip
pass, rendered them as a courtesy by
some company or corporation.
There have been numerous attempts
to regulate this matter by law. They
have usually failed, First, because they
have been infringements on the rights
Of individuals and corporations, second
because their promoters have commonly
been persons who have failed to obtain
special favors OF the kind themselves,
and third. because In not a few in
stances, they have been inspired by per-
sonal motives OF a malicious and retail
atory character,
There have been many cases Of lltlga-
ton between individuals and railroad
companies that have been decided in
favor Of the latter OF course there
have been others that were against
them. But Is that any real argument
In support OF the proposition, that the
Judges who tried them were Influenced
by railway pass Is It not fact
that all wealthy corporations and es-
pecially railroad companies, are spe-
cial objects Of suits for damages? That
juries are very prone to give verdicts
against the wealthy defendants In such
casesy And that when the contest turns
on questions Of law and equity, the de-
cisions are often in reverse OF verdicts.
because the legal points involved just-
fy and demand that reversal?
Poor human nature II so frall and
suspicious Of evil, that almost any base
lnsinuation obtains credence and sup
port In some quarters. But does Il
follow because judges may have trav-
eled on free passes, that decisions rem
dered in matters affecting the company
that issued them, were influenced or
purchased by such a paltry consldera-
ton? Has II been shown that any such
decisions were contrary 10 the law and
the facts? II not. the attempt to make
II appear that they were bought with
railroad ticket, Is as vile as IT is alb
surd.
II judges were venal they could gain
money in sums that would make n free
pass but a picayunish consideration.
Unless there is positive evidence thar
judicial decisions have been swayed by
a courtesy which most people thus IA
vored accept with alacrty, the intIma.
ton must be viewed with the utmost
doubt, and with n query as to the mo-
tlves Of those who suggest the calumny
It has been argued that sometimes
railroad companies have important
complications, and there Is danger that
the company giving free pass to n
Judge VIII probably be the victor. This
may be met by the answer that prob
ably one road is no more ready 20 ex-
tend the courtesy than It's opponent,
and II the lltlgants are equally free, the
two favors would negative each other
We are not arguing in favor OF free
passes. II Is o matter that can be
safely left to the companies or indivldu.
ais that choose 20 issue them, and TO
those who accept them. 1t is largely an
American custom. It is often very con.
venient for public officers. and for per.
sons who have to use the railroads for
extensive transportation OF merchan-
iIse II facilitates the work OF news.
,apers and other enterprises that are
IN the public Interest. II is not likely
10 be abolished at present
To restrict 1t by law is, in our opinion