Omaha daily bee., 1911-05-15
TAFT HITS JUDGES RECALL
Points Out Superiority of Judicial
Systems of Great Britain.
CHANGE WOULD NOT BE REFORM
Hopes Latest "NOstrum" VIII Meet
Same End as other Inventions
of DemaEOsues at Hands
of People.

NEW YORK, May H.-Presldent Taft
came out publicly last night against the re-
call of the judiciary. In his speech before
the conference on reform of the criminal
law and procedure the president made his
attitude plain Most of his speech was
devoted to a comparison-highly unfavor-
BILE to this country-of the judicial systems
OF Great Britain and the United .Statess
He lamented the tendency manifested even
in England, but more particularly in this
country to put limitations on the power
of the Judge
And now, not satisfied with reducing
the position of a judge to something like
moderator in religious assembly, or
presiding officer of . political convention
the office is still to be made less import
ant and assume more and more the char
acter OF defendant by a provision of law,
under which, II his rulings and conduct
in court do not suit small percentage Of
the electors of his district, he may be
compelled to submit the question Of his
continuance on the bench during the term
to which he was elected, to an election for
recall, in which the reason for his recall
is to be included in 200 words, and his
defense thereto to be equally brief
VIII Not he Reform.
1T can hardly be said that this proposed
change, II adopted, will give him greater
authority or power for usefulness or con-
stitute reform in the enforcement of the
criminal law of this country. 1t will GER
tainly not diminish the power nor ire
sponsibility of counsel for the defendant
Let us hope that the strong sense of humor
OF the American people, which has so often
saved them from the dangers of dema-
goguery will not be lacking in respect of
this 'nostrum.
THE statistics which show the crimes
that go unpublished in this country, com
pared with those in England. are start
ling and humiliating to any American who
has pride in his fellow cOuntrymen as a
law abiding and law-enforcing people.
wherein is the great difference between
the effectiveness of the systems? l believe
IL to exist in the character. experience and
learning of the judges. in the power which
they maintain and exercise in the court
OF trial for the saving of time and the
simpIification of the issues and in the re-
spect and obedience given to intimations
from the bench as to the proper behavior
OF counsel In the conduct of the case. II
there Is any other reason of the difference
1t cannot be found in procedure"
JudEeS' BaVors Reduced.
Il wish TO comment on the effect that
the change in the power of the judge in
this country in the matter of the manage
ment of the trial has had upon his ability
to shorten the methods OF counsel for the
defense and their conduct in the court
room.
What believe 10 be an unfounded fear
OF judicial tyranny and an unreasonable
limitations upon their power in the con-
duct OF criminal trials which have made
the trial in this country and especially
in the western states, an entirely differ
ent institution from what It was under
stood to be at the time OF the adoption Of
our constitution. In many states judges
are not permitted to comment upon the
facts at all They are not even allowed
to charge the jury after the arguments OF
counsel, but they are required TO submit
written charges upon abstruse questions Of
law with no opportunity to apply the prin-
ciples concretely to the facts of the case
Change In Code of Ethics.
The restraint that judge in the course
OF trial imposes upon the manner and
conduct OF counsel in an English court is
thus wholly wanting, with the result that
there seems to have been a substantial
change in the code of professional ethics
governing counsel and in the extremes TO
which counsel in the defense OF their
clients seem 20 think IL is entirely proper
for them 20 go. Their conduct makes
neither for the dignity OF the court, for
the elevation Of the ethics OF the bar. for
the expenditure Of criminal procedure. nor
for the reasonable punishment OF crime
CONTINUED on Second PaEs)