Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1905-12-13
RESPECT sANcHH OF THE COURT

RESPECT SANCIITY OF THE COURT"
1t has recently developed that for
twenty one years Rufus w. Peckham,
one OF the justices of the United States
supreme court, has been a trustee of
McCurdy's Mutual Life Insurance COM
pany.
Some of the eastern newspapers who
make it point to fight special interests
between election days, while on cleo.
ton day they throw their powerful in
fuence TO the support of the preferred
candidates of these special interests,
are just now having considerable to
say with respect to MIR. Justice Peck
hams connection with the Mutual
Life. We are told by these newspapers
that during Mr. Justice Peckham's
trusteeship the McCurdys took 81 ,918,-
6O7 OF the trust funds which properly
belonged to the policyholders, and
which was practically in the keeping of
Mr.. Justice Peckham and his fellow
trustees. We are told by these news.
papers that the McCurdys made much
of the fact that a justice of the United
States supreme court serves as trustee
of their concern. We are told that
while trustees are supposed to be re-
sponsible for the acts of the admins
trative officers, and are presumed TO
represent the policy holders, these trus-
tees elected McCurdy president, and
have not, so far. made an effort to re.
move hin. We are told that during all
the years of the McCurdy iniquties the
name of Mr.. Justice Peckham has been
| used as "a cloak" and that Mr.. Justice
| Peckbam's sanction of the use of his
name has been ''in itself certificate of
honesty and a.guarantee of respectable
ity." We are told that it is "all the
more mystery why, after full expos
ure and confession, M. Justice Peck.
ham has permitted the abuse of his
name and his Office to continue" We
are told that although the McCurdys
have confessed, no one has heard from
Mr.. Justice Peckham either demand
that the McCurdys resign or request
that his name be dIsaSsociated from all
connection with the concern.
All these things call to mind the fact
that in 1896 when democrats made bold
to criticlse some Of the acts of mere
men holding positions on the bench
they were told by these same newspap,
ers that the judge could do no wrong.
ard that it was little short of treason
for any individual or political party to
critlcise or to call IN question the acts
of judicial officer.
With what reason, then, do these
newspapers question the propriety of
an associate justice Of the United
States supreme court holding an Office
in connection with a commercial con.
Germ? With what reason do these news
papers criticise an associate justice of
the United States supreme court be.
cause. while serving as a trustee charg.
ed with the responsibility for policy
holders money, he made no effort 20
protect the funds of the people whose
fortunes were entrusted to him? With
what reason do these newspapers seek
to drag the ermine into the dust? Why
not ''let we'll enough alone?" Why not
have some concern for the 'sanctity of
the cOurts?" Why not "stand I'D for
the dignity and honor of the judlciary?''
Why should any newspaper editor ''lay
foul hands upon sacred precincts?"
Concluding an editorial personally
addressed to Rufus w. Peckham, jus
tice of the supreme court of the United
, States, the New York World says:
The McCurdys have confessed. They
plead guilty. Out with them!'
Well, what about Mr. Justice Peck.
ham? According to the World, during
all the Tina that McCurdy was presi.
. dent Mr.. Justice Peckham was trustee
The McCurdys have confessed, it is
true, but it seems that during all of his
trustship Mr.. Justice Peckham never
raised hand for the protection of the
/ policy holders, and since the McCurdys
have confessed, Mr.. Justice Peckhan
has not registered protest.
Out with the McCurdys, of course
l But why not out with the Peckhams?-
: CommOner.