Weekly journal-miner., 1910-11-09
INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY.
(Arizona Republican,

posed in Arizona s Constitutional con 1 vention, the provision to make judges subject to "the recall" is easily the most idiotie, from practical stand point, for nothing else would so sure ly make Statehood impossible.
 The President of the United States is a great lawyer. Three-fOurths of \ the members of the Senate and House of Representative are law yers.
 Every honest lawyer is deeply at tached to the principle of independ- ence of the judiciary. If lawyers of sense and integrity could have their way, the election of judges would be wholly separated from party politics. In the most progressive states long steps toward divorcing judiciary elections from party politics have been taken.
 The doctrine laid down by the great Chancellor Kent, more than fifty years ago, has the endorsement of every square lawyer:
 'In monarehial governments the independence of the judiciary is es- sential to guard the rights of the subject from the injustice of the crown; but in Republics it is equally salutary in protecting the Constitu tion and laws from the eneroaeh- ments and tyranny of faction. Laws, however wholesome or necessary, are frequently the object of temporary aversion, and sometimes of popular resistance. It is requisite that the courts of justice should be able at all times to present a determined countenanee against all lieentious acts. and to deal impartially and truly, according to law, between suitors of every description, whether the cause, the question or the party be popular or unpopular. To give them the courage and the firmness to do it the judges ought to be con- fident of the security. of their sal aries and station. Nor is an inde- pendent judiciary less useful as check upon the legislative power, which is sometimes disposed, from the force of party or the temptations of interest, to make a sacrifice Of Constitutional rights; and it IS wise and necessary principle of our government, as will be shown here after in the course of these lectures, that legislative acts are subject to the severe scrutiny and impartial in terpretation of the courts of justice, who are bound to regard the COnsti- tuition as the paramount law and the highest evidence of the will of the peoples
 "To give them the courage and the firmness to do it"-to deal i'm partially and truly, according to law, between suitors of every description, whether the cause, the question or the party be unpopular-"the judges ought to be confident of the seeur' ity of the salaries and station"
 No more ineisive indictment of "the recall" could be drawn. Chan eellor Kent. in the famous words we have quoted, of course did not dream of the possibility of "the recall" He had in mind merely the insecurity of salary and station caused by mak- ing a judge a suppliant to polite ians for his position. The great Chancellor would have found diff fieulty, We imagine, in expressing with sufficient force the obvious ob jections to the making of judges the constant victims of popular preju- dice and passions by means of ",the recall"
 If it were possible for Arizona to put 1.-the recall" in force against the judges of our courts, it would be speedily learned that the only aspirants for the bench would be found among the few crooks of the legal profession-an honest lawyer could not afford to take the job, for he. would know that the perform anee of his duty on the. bench would inevitably subject him to the an- noyanees and burdensome expenses of attempting "reealls" initiated by dissatisfied litigants and shyster at torneys.
 Is it possible that there is in the convention a delegate of even ord mary intelligence who can bring himself to think that President Taft or the lawyers in either House of Congress would approve "the recall" of judges as a part of our Constitu- tion?