The Leavenworth echo. [volume] (Leavenworth, Wash.) 1904-current, 1910-10-14
PEOPLE VS.. SUPREME COURT
Continued from First Pagel

the election OF Justice Root. Root
with a candidate opposing him at cleo
ton would have been defeated, and the
state spared an humiliating spectacle.
This secret committee meeting was
dominated by members of the legisla-
ture who protested to speak for the
members OF the supreme court, and on
this profession were able to accomplish
their purpose.
Neither can the members of the
court now seeking reelection show
clean hands when questioned as to
their acts and attitude during the 1909
session of the legislature. The judic-
ial convention act was first suggested
by Frank Post, whose relations with the
members of the supreme bench are of
the closest. Post is a corporation law
yer of renown. His law practice has
to do almost exclusively with corpora
tons. That he should have been in
spired with this judicial convention
idea because OF his solicitude for the
people is too remote to be worthy of
consideration. Posts sole intent and
purpose was to keep the court consti-
tuted as it is. And his reasons for that
desire could have been no other than
that the court suited his particular
practice. When Post first preached
the subject one negative nod of the
head of any supreme court justice
would have ended the whole matter
right there.
Next we come to the part played by
J. Will Shafer. Shafer is the state law
librarian. He is an appointee OF the
supreme court, and holds confidential
relations with every member. The
mere fact that Shafer drew the bill,
when his relations to the court are con-
sidered, is enough to convict the court
of being party to the proceedings.
Shafer would never have drawn the bill
without the approval of the supreme
court. He never could have drawn
the bill secretly. The supreme court
knew what Shafer was doing, and had
only to frown and Shafer would have
ceased. But Shafer did not cease. He
drew the bill and had it introduced in
both houses of the Legislature. No plea
of ignorance will hold in the face of
Skaters part in the accomplishment of
this law. No plea of judicial ethics
will hold. The court did not have to
descend to the legislative halls to stop
the bill. In the sanctity and privacy
OF their chambers, a word to Shafer
would have been sufficient.
The bill in the senate was fathered
by Will E. Graves Of Spokane and Sen
ator Knickerbocker, close friends Of
the court. E. B. Palmer, of Root scan
dial fame, was the chief advocate Of the
bill in the lower house. In the quiet
work for the passage of the bill they
assured the members that the bill met
the wishes OF the supreme court. And
members Of the supreme court actually
lobbied for the bill. Speaker Meigs Of
Yakima was opposed to the bill. The
speaker was called to the Office of Gov
ernor Hay while the bill was under
consideration in the house, and there
met two members of the supreme court
who asked him to withdraw his oppo-
sition to the measure.
There never was any question in the
minds OF either the friends or the op-
ponents OF the bill that supreme court
justices wanted it made law, and it
was this knowledge that made possible
the Tacoma convention. Never once
during the days when the law was be-
ing discussed did any member of the
supreme court raise his voice against
| it. Members were visible in the
Hobbies, and in the legislative halls;
they talked with wavering members
and by every Mtifce Of the professional
lobbyist they advocated the passage OF
the bill.
When the bill had been jammed
and traded thru both houses and had
gone to the governor for his signature,
members OF the supreme court carried
their advocacy to the executive cham
Der. Governor Hay was product OF
the direct primary law and was loathe
to see it emasculated. In fact he had
| 100 .-~an,ooa oIraodxy u,rittap mhap