Weekly journal-miner., 1911-07-12
ABsURDITY OF RECALL

N-aNN"N AhN ANNdAA VI
 the judiciary provision is invoked
 in Oregon, and how unlikely it is
 that the voters can properly weigh
 the question of law involved:
 No sooner have the ardent sup
 porters of the recall made the plea
 that it will only be used against
 judges in rare and aggravated cases
 than the recall is invoked against Judge John S. Coke on the ground that he gave biased instructions to the jury in a murder trial.
 The question appears to be one of law only, of which the great
 majority of voters have only a smat- tering. Yet, if the recall petition secures the required number of sig natures, it will be necessary for each voter in order to form de- cision whether to vote for or against Judge Coke, to read and understand all the evidence in the trial of Roy McClallen all the law relating to it and the instructions to the jury. All the voters of six counties will constitute a court of appeal from Judge COke's decision and will try Judge Coke and incidentally try both sides of the McClallen case will be apt to take the stump and argue the case before all the voters of the six counties who are all so learned in the law that they are fully competent to review the acts of a judge who has made the law his life study and yet would no doubt admit that he does not yet know all there is to know about the law.
 What sort of effect will this pro- ceeding have on Judge Coke and on other judges! We are frequently reminded that judges are human and prone to err. How much more prone will they be to err if in interpret ing the law, they are practically re- quired not only to interpret the law but to consider how the voters will regard their interpretation2 Being only human, as the recallers so ire quently remind us, the judges will be tempted to decide not according to the law, but according to the in- the voters wish for the time being to be put upon it. For, being only human, the judges wish to hold their jobs.
 But will the voters east their bal | lots according to whether they, with | their smatering of law, think the in the MeClallen case were biased or notl Will many of them not vote according to their opinion whether, on general principles McClallen should be punished; wheth- sr they know him and think him a good fellow; whether they know the nan he killed and think it a shame o have killed him; whether MeClallen 'r his victim was a member of the anne lodge; whether Judge Coke is ! member of the same lodge or de- .ided a case for or against them 1T some friend or relative of the 7oter7 Some of these considerations nay be allowable in the election of judge in the first instance, but hey should be excluded when a udge's action in some specific case s challenged. Yet we know they annot be excluded and we may see judge removed from the bench whenever an unpopular decision gives lis enemies an opportunity to coal see against him.
 Such a system, once put in prac- ice, will provoke continual public
 seussion of every lawsuit. It will nake "sea lawyers of the whole population. It will cause frequent ppeals to public opinion from judi ial decisions in important cases. It Till destroy the usefulness of the ourts and ultimately destroy the ourts themselves, substituting trial V nuhlie oDipiop eor a,or,- ,,-.,.o.o