The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-08-18
From an Address by United States Senator Jonathan Bourne, Jr.,
 of Oregon.) ..
Application of Recall to Judiciary.

Application of Recall to Judiciary.
 MT. President, objection is made to the admission of Arizona because it's ion. The particular point of objec- ltion is that tue recall applies to the Judiciary as we'll as to executive, ad- hninistratfve. and legislative officers The great fear Is that constant &C., countability to the people of the tState will exercise an improper influ- fence upon the courts.
 To my mind this objection is unten- able. As I said recently in an article hn the Saturday Evening Post, if the people of Arizona or any other State tare competent to elect their Judges tand can be trusted to act fairly and honestly in the election, they can also lbe trusted in the exercise of the re- icall power. The Arizona constitution, i1ike that of nearly every other State, lprvides for the election of judges by lthe people. Those who oppose the power of the people to recall judge jshould-in order to be consistent lalso oppose the power to elect judges lin the first instance.
 The people of a State or district elect a man to a judicial position, be- cause they believe he will serve the general welfare. They elect him in Participation of good service and they lwould recall him only for de- imonstrated bad service. The as sumption that the people would recall a judge without reason-for jfhe qualification of spite or while they lwere under the impulse of passion -is without justification. The Am erican people never act in such a fway when given an opportunity to lact in a lawful and considerate man. lner.
 Opposition is an Insult to Judiciary.
 Men who profess opposition to the recall as applied to the judiciary for fear judges will be improperly in- fuenced by public opinion do not realize that they are offering a great CT insult to the judiciary than the advocates of the recall have conf dence in the judiciary in general; but they recognize the fact, demonstrat- ed by experience, that human frailty exists in judges as in other men.
 To assert that judges are above cor ruption or improper prejudice and that they are always efficient public servants is too absurd for serious sconsideration. The men who sit on the bench to-day were boys when members of the legislative branch of government were boys. They were no better or worse on the average than I've. In childhood and young manhood we mingled on an equality, enjoyed the same sports, received instructions in the same schools were taught the same religious principles, were. sub- ijected to the same temptations, in- dulged in the same vices and cher iished the same ambitions. Upon what reasoning, then. can it be assert ed that the boy who studied law and found such favor in the eyes of the political boss IS to secure a nomina- ltion for the bench is superior in eith- ier efficiency or honesty to his broth CT who entered business and was slated by the same boss for a position tion in the executive or legislative branch of government? Let us look at this subject from a common sense viewpoint
 There hangs no halo of sanctity around the head of the judiciary, ex- cept as minimizing men concede a sa- credneS which the legal profession has assumed for occupants of the bench. Judges, like all other men in public or private life, are generally honest. Their failure, in exceptional instances. to serve faithfully the peo- p1e by whom they are employed is due to the same cause to which may be attributed similar failure on the Iurt of other public servants. This EAuse is the unrepresentative system by which they are chosen.
 Influence of Political Boss Over
 Judges.
 Opponents of the extension of the recall to the judiciary profess great fear that judges will listen to what they call public clamor and will rem der decisions against justice in order to avoid public displeasure. How