The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-08-17
PRESIDENT TAFT's VETO.

est in his opposition TO the proposes
Arizona Constitution because IL pre-
vides for the recall Of Judges. He doe
not seem to care so much for the por
tion of the New Mexico Constitution
which is objected to on the grount
that it makes the constitution too diff
cult to amend. The resolution a
passed by Congress requires thnt il
Arizona the recall provision for judge
shall be resubmitted TO the people a
| the same time that the election fol
State officers is held, and in New
Mexico that the amending clause shal
also be resubmitted at the like elec
ton It is manifest that if each State
should. at the election referred to, re
affirm the clauses as now carried in the
constitution, Arizona would have a con
stitutional provision for the recall OF
the Judges, and New Mexico would have
a constitution extremely difficult to
amend.
In his objection to the Arizona con
stitution, the President points out that,
"a HC Supulp dPIlpNC tuC
with the clause for the recall of Judges
in it, he could not escape responsibility
for the operation of. that clause, in
case the people see fit TO reaffirm its
adoption This reasoning is sound; the
President could not escape his re-
sponsibility. But, why should he. seek
to escape it' Why should he insist that
the people of Arizona shall not; have
the recall of judges in case they want
it' The President would doubtless
reply that his consent to the people
having this provision would mean, to
some extent, at least, that he approved
of it; and he takes very great pains to
explain at length that he disapproves
of it very thoroughly and very earnest
ly, But this conclusion would not fol-
low; every one knows that President
Taft is opposed to the recall of the
judiciary. The responsibility for that
recall in Arizona, in case the people re-
affirmed this constitutional provision,
would be with the Arizonans, and not
with the President. He absoves him
self entirely from responsibility in his
ntterances heretofore, disapproving ut
terly of the principle involved in this
recall,
1t is to be noted that the President,
in discussing this matter, discusses it
as he might do were he Judge on the
bench; and having been for good
many years a judge on the bench him
self, it is quite natural that he should
take this special view of it. But, as
we have pointed out heretofore, it is
-ather narrow. personal view; ii does
not cover the case by any means We
ioubt if the people Of Arizona, or of
oregon, where this recall is firmly fixed
n the constitution, would listen for a
moment to any appeal TO recall Judge
simply because he had honestly and
With such emphasis as he chose to en-
'loy, made a decision that was unpopu-
ar. But, there are reasons why the
people might wish to recall Judge en-
ircly separate and distinct from any
lissent from decision which he might |
'ender; we have referred TO this here
ofore. A Judge may, in the estimation
If the public, be go tainted with cor
upton that his decisions are always |
lnder suspicion, and yet not to be so
corrupt that impeach chment |
would promise success in removing him |
rom the bench. A tainted Judge who |
night labor under the suspicion of the
'ublic of being corrupt, and yet not |
corrupt, is quite as un-
satisfactory on the bench as though be |
lad been proved corrupt. Then. a |
Judge may be guilty of dereliction on
moral grounds, and by reason of defects |
n his character that, while not prov
bJy Improbable. ,ye, destroy his use.
ulpess on the bench. In such a case
he recall would work a service to the
ubic without conNicting the Judge of
ny punishable offense And finally, it |
night be desirable. to recall a Judge
Eho was so inefficient in his presiding.
o absolutely lax in arriving at a. dc.
ision of motions, and the conclusion of
ascs before him. that his court could
e notorious for ineffectiveness and in.
fficieDcy. 1t might be that mere mo.
lonsrwould be hung UP in his court for
,onths that could and ought to he de.
idcd oflhapd. 1t might be that the
and dockcts of the. courts
'ould become so cloggcd that progress
-ould be impossible. and liticants
'ould practically be denied Justice.
q the determination Of their cases, as
hey have right to demand. 4
idge Dotoriousiy unfit by reason Of his
ick of administrative power and his
1decision of character. should be sub
ect 10 recall, though not TO inpeach.
lent. II is to be observed that Presi-
cnt Taft himself has been very EN-.
hattie in the denouneing Of DELAYS in
hr court procedure. 1t amounts often,
cry often. indeed, to denial Of ins.
ce and an oppression upon Iitigants
Tho arc not able to get a determine
on of their legal rights, The Ameri-
an Bar Association has also taken I'D