The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1910-10-28
REASONS WHY SUPREME
COURT MUST BE CHANGED
Non-Partisan Judiciary League Presents Evidence of
Misdoing On Part Of Judges-Connection Shown
Between Members Of Supreme Court and Repeal
Of Primary Nominations.

u. VIII CHaler. onaIer Is Une 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 Su-
preme 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.
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 scandal
fame, was the chief advocate of the bill
in the lower house. In their quiet work
for the passage of the bill they assured
the members that the bill met the wish
es of the Supreme Court. And mem
bers of the Supreme Court actually lob
bied 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 con-
sideration in the House, and there met
two members of the Supreme Court
who asked him to withdraw his oppo
sition to the measure.
When the bill had been jammed and
traded through both houses and had
gone to the governor for his signature,
members of the Supreme Court carried
their advocacy to the executive cham
ber Governor Hay was a product of
the direct primary law and was loath
to see it emasculated. In fact he had a
veto message already written when in
fluence from members of the Supreme
Court was brought to bear on him and
he reluctantly signed the bill. Here
again the now regretful justices had an
opportunity to protect the direct pri-
mary law had they so willed. Silence or
Indifference on their part would have
insured veto and the defeat of the
bill. Instead some of the justices hur-
ried to the governors office and urged
him to sign it.
Then came the special session. 1t was
the intention of many members to re-
peal the judicial convention act, but
once more members of the Supreme
Court craftily interviewed. Tney and
their friends were ever watchful and
were never lacking in impediments in
the way of repeal.
Neither did the members of the court
seeking election take objection to the
manner of selecting the delegates to
the convention of August 3, 1910. 1t
was a widely known fact that for the
most part these delegates were selected
at secret caucuses which made no pre-
tense of representing the will or wishes
of the people. This violation of the
spirit of the direct primary law passed
without unfavorable comment on their
part.
Coming down to later days, when this
hand picked convention assembled in
Tacoma on August for the purpose of
naming judicial ticket in pursuance
to the judicial convention act, these
members of the Supreme Court were
among those present, although they
were we'll aware that every act of tne
convention was to be in accordance with
plans made long before the convention
assembled. These judges knew, as GER
tain as man may know anything, that
they were to be nominated by eonven-
tion which in no way represented the
people, but which in every way repre-
sented the dominating interests. Yet
they made no protest, but waited with
contentme for their expectations tc
be fulfilled.
In this same convention resolution
was offered pledging the repeal of the
judicial convention law. Here with theil
nominations assured, these five judges
could at no political expense to them
selves have indicated their distaste with
the present law and assured the passage
of the resolution. But they were dis
cretly silent, as befitted the beneficiar
les of the system.
Not one of these justices hesitated fol-
a second to accept the nomination from
the. hands of this misrepresentation
convention. BY this very acceptance
they endorsed every step that had beer
taken by the foes of the direct primary
Then appeared the Non-Partisan Ju
dietary League, and the complacent
nominees and their Standpat newspa
pers supporters became uneasy. un
easiness grew to panic when the Pro
gressive cause swept the state. AFRO
CANT silence disappeared and eourte
GUS willingness to talk took its place
When the Non Partisan League held it
nominating convention in Tacoma Ii
brarian Shafer, first friend of the court
was present to stem if possible tn
trend of events. II was hopeless. Whel
the Democratic convention met the fol