The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-02-26
WHY JUDGE HOOK LOST.

tion to the proposition to recall Judges
it is claimed that a judge should be left
uubampered in his place to exercise his
functions untrammeled, without fear or
favor, and without being annoyed by
popular clamor or being called to ac-
count before the people or any other
power except the appellate court, for
decisions which he renders The idea
is that a Judge should be entirely free
and independent In his decisions, so
that he will give his judgments with
ont bias, without restraint, without
fear of injury to himself, and without
hope of reward.
/ All this is very fine. AMI all this
would pnt the Judges on a pinnacle of
| responsibility, of manly disregard for
| fleeting opinions or emotions, and
would free the bench from all trammels
save only those imposed by the law it.
self in the opinion of the Judge con-
struing it, and those which might be
faced in the appellate court. But alas,
we find in the camps of those most
strenuous for tho independence of
Judges. a Iodgmcnt Of the same princi-
pie which calls for the recall of Judges
when they make decisions unpopular
with those who put them in office. We
spprehend that the principle is precisely
tho same where a Judge makes de.
cision that is unpopular with the peo-
pie as when he makes a decision that
is unpopular with the power which ap
points the Judges. Where the people
elect the Judge, the idea Of the recall
is that the Judge is responsible to the
people; where superior power ap-
points the Judge, the idea of respon
sibility is that the Judge must not
make himself offensive to the appoint
ing power if he expects advancement.
The principle is IDENTICAL; the recall
would hamper elected Judges, and to
require a cultivation of wary regard
for the appointive power, would in the
same way hamper appointed Judges.
And yet we believe that the people
would not be as prone to recall a
Judge on account of any decision which
he might make as the appoiutive power
is to refuse promotion TO a Judge on
account of some opinion that he may
have rendered
This opinion is illustrated in the case
of Judge Hook. There appeared to be
no doubt Of Judge Hook g appointment
20 the vacancy created by the death
of Judge Harlan on the Supreme Bench
of the United States. But decision
Of Judge Hooks sustaining the "iim
crow car law in Oklahoma was cited
against him. and at once his prospects
for appointment went into eclipse. We
do not ourselves believe in the doc.
trinc Of the "'iim crow" law and the
decision as made by Judge Hook; but
that has nothing TO do with the prin.
ciple involved. That principle is that
judge should not be held personally
responsible, either by way Of recall
by vote or by tho appoiutivc
power for any honest minded decision
he may make vet il was because Of
this decision that Judge Hook was re-
fused promotion. The case is identical
in principle with one in which the peo.
pie might recall Judge on account of
decision which he may have made.
Judge Hook construed the ''jim crow -
car law copscientiously. beyond doubt /;
, and his decision rules in the case He
found the law constitutional.
Whether or not one believes such n
! law to be right or not has nothing to
, do with the case, The point is that the
{ principle involved in the recall of
Judges was applied as against Judge
Hook, barring his promotion 1t will
therefore not be competent in those
= who support this sort Of bar against ,'he
promotion OF a Judge because of de-
cislon which he has rendered. to combat
$ the idea that the people should have the
right 10 recall Judge whom they have
elected. For. if Judge is TO be de
MED promotion because of a decision
rendered by him, that Judge is under
the bar of censuTe on account of that
D opinion, precisely the same as Judge
G would be who was recalled by the peo-
pie on account Of a decision which thc
people did not like,
So that the principle Of the reca II
appears to be firmly lodged in the
minds of those who fight the recall
direct, and 10 influence their decisions
TO the extent Of denying promotion 10
a man whose decision in certain case
: thcv do not approve. We can say in
passing that we think the. ground OF
disappearing Judge Hook was sound.
But IN so saying. we have to admit
that the principle which denied pro-
motion to him is the same as the recall
5 aud that those who thus censure Judge
/ Hook and fight his promotion have no