Arizona republican., 1910-01-12

| be elected by the people, and l.. Fl Chalmers was cited to appear in de-
 fense of the idea that a better plan | would he by the appointment of judges I in some manner. probably by the gov
 ernor. subject to confirmation by the 1 senate.
 Judge Lewis recited the varying opinions as he had heard as to ap- l pointment and election and tenure. and then outline his own views in | part It is scarcely possible in a brief report to give any speakers s theories with sufficient fullness for judgment, to be passed upon them. Judge Lewis seemed to favor a long tenure, for supreme judges at least, say fourteen. years, so that by mak- ing good in his first term a second election or appointment would be equal to a life tenure in most cases.
 He seemed rather to favor the elec- tive methods. He also believed that
 salaries should at least be large enough to justify the securing of the
 best material for the bench. and he also discussed the matter of county and district and probate courts.
 Mir Christy spoke of the principles
 
 the election of judges the only proper way and found by experience to be the best way. on the theory that the Judgment of the majority of people
 h better than the judgment of it's wisest man. He did not favor
 probate court, but did favor impefai lively county court that both civil and criminal cases could speedily be disposed of. even to continuous Sses- sions. if necessary. He thought the supreme judges should be not less than three. nor more than five. and that their salaries should be at least $6.00O per year: that they should serve for twelve years. and beginning with three judges. the first election should name one for four years. one for eight, and one for the full term. SO there would always be holdover majority that the findings of the courts would be permanent and deS sirable precedents to follow. He said the county judges should receive at least -$4,000 per year for first-c,ass counties and $3.000 for second-class counties.
 Mir Chalmers said he very strongly disagreed with both Judge Lewis and Captain Christy in almost everything they had said. He believed the judges should be appointed by the governor for life, after due conference with the bar association. to determine who was considered head and shoulders above the rank and file in the profession: that they should receive on the su- preme bench $25.0O0 per year. and hot tr;o rhn $f0,000 to S15,000 per year. He be- lieved a long tenure was necessary for a. judge to devote himself to his work. but if it were limited to four teen years. as Judge Lewis suggested. there would naturally be much thought given unconsciously perhaps to ren- dering decisions in a way that would ensure reelection. for out of a job at 50 or 55. he could not build up a new practice. and he would sacrifice more to succeed himself than under almost any other condition. He would put the judges on a pinnacle so high in every way that they would have no financial worries nor thought of else than a life work in the interest of the best administration of the courts. independent of all influences.
 Paul R. Ihgles spoke in support of MT. Chalmers to the effect that the judges now are underpaid. and then discussed one thing that he thought Arizona should be thankful for, that whatever the method of choosing judges, they would be picked in Ari- zona. ,remarking. however. that he meant no reflection or discourtesy 'to any present member of the bench
 The toastmaster had set the time for "calling the game on account of darkness" at midnight. but there were others the banqueters wanted to hear from. and the time limit was lifted.
 P. W-O'Sullivan of Prescott had been assigned to the toast, The Utility of he thought there had been consider able agitation, and there was nothing more to say, at least he could think of nothing on the subject assigned. so he spoke on one self selected, ''Our Clients which he said was the most important subject a lawyer could dis cuss. His remarks were exceedingly witty in the beginning. punctuated with incidents from real life, and merging finally into an eloquent style shat held his audience almost breath less. after the manner of tho uncon- scious spellbindd. He concluded most amusing speech by serious re- flection on the greater duties of the lawyer to his clients He told the divers ways in which different clients had to be treated. and how they often lost their cases. In one instance he said he lost a case because he was unable to prove that a man was not the father of his youngest child. But there are other clients who leave their fortunes and their regulations in the lawyers hands, and to serve them faithfully is the lawyers greatest