The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-11-12
THE RECALL OF JUDGES.

Some time ago there was "A murder
trial in Oregon, wherein Judge Coke,
sitting in he trial of Roy McClallan for
murder, gave offense TO number of
the people in his district. Directly
after the trial ended, a Jealous effort
WAS made TO work the recall OF Judge
Coke. the judicial recall being one Of
the constitutional provisions of Ore
gon. But the effort TO recall the Judge
did not assume proportions enough TO
bring it to election.
Another effort is now being made
against the Judge. it being specifically
charged that Judge Coke refused to per
NIT the lawyers for the prosecution to
don the dead mans coat and vest to
prove that the bullet holes were in the
back. The garments themselves were in
evidence, showing that the bullet holes
were in the back, so il seems impossible
to understand what Was to be gained
by having the attorney for the prose
cution put on that coat so as TO demon
stratc that the bullet holes were, in
fact in the back 1t could hardly be
supposed. as the Oregonian says, from
which paper we get these facts. that
the murdered man wore his coat back
in front. and buttoned it up the back,
The coat itself was full proof of the
fact that the man was shot in the
back, and the further clinching of proof
of this obvious fact would be quite
superfluous.
The truth seems TO be that very
deep.seated feeling is prevalent IN a
part of Judge Coke's district against
him on account Of the result of that
trial And yet 1t does not seem likely
that anv recall election could possibly
be set on foot against him, since the
original effort in that line failed,
and since the present effort Is
based on such frivolous grounds.
The. recall Of a Judge should never
be on any matter of this kind
any way. even If the recall Of Judges
were to be put into effect. 1t is pos
sjble IN Oregon under the constitution,
TO be sure, but it should be exercised.
sense and sound judgment, The judge
on the bench is surely "A better exponent
of the law than the voters at the polls
The voters may not like the Judge but
a misliking is no reason for recall.
There should be something against tho
Judge in the nature Of what would. be
charged under an Impeachment pro
ccdure before the recall should he put
INTO effect. If q Judge is notoriousIy
biased vindictive, unbalanced in mind,
or of immoral habits: if he is drunk
ard; if ne is scandaously Inefficient;
If he is by temperament unfit TO dis
charge creditably the duties of a nudge
the recall might with propriety be put
into effect against him where the con
stitution allows the recall Of the Judges
But IT is manifestly a gross impropriety
TO undertake TO recall jpdgc because
of legal rulings which he may make in
the conduct Of any trial, For the voters
cannot possibly know the law as the
Judge does. nor the reasons which irnpel
him 10 make the rulings which NAV be
Of. We do not believe that
the average American constituency in
the unit Of election where the Judge
may be, would in the least incline to
recall Judge because Of any legal rul.
ing which he might make. We believe
that with . unanimity which might be
SAID TO be absolute. American judicial
would consent that they
have no right TO undertake 10 oycrrule
a Judge as to his exposition OF the law;
and that, with sentiment that might
be as sound as universal, they would
say that only under such conditions as
would ordinarily be supposed TO bring
on impeachment (Which appears to be
an obsolete and impractical remedy
would they undertake to recall a
Judge