The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-12-12
to destroy that conhde

| sufficient to destroy that confidence
Like Caesars wife a judge should be
above suspicion; If he is not he should be re-
tired to private life. The cause of justice is
too sacred to be trifed with. To allow it to
be administered by one whose good name has
been Swallowed is not to be considered. Judge
Archibald may not be guilty as charged
but he has been indiscreet. He has not been
careful to keep himself sternly aloof from the
contamination of dollars. Apparently he has
not seen the necessity of keeping himself free
from obligations to men who might expect
something from him in return. 1t is a great
deal that the people demand of their judges,
but no man is drafted for the honor, it is
accorded it on his own solicitation. When
that judge fails to measure up to the standard:
when confidence in his integrity is lost to any
number of people; when his impartiality s
doubted by a goodly number with cause, his
place were better filled by someone else.
Counsel for Judge Archibald unwttingly
scaled his clients doom when he said that
judge should not be removed except evil
dence that would convict In court of law.
This may not be an admission that Judge
Archbalds actions have been suspicious; it
may not be an admission that he has over
stepped the bounds of propriety. but 1t is an
admission that Judge Archibald believes he
should retain his seat even should It be proven
that he has. It is an admission that he be-
lieves he is qualified to sit as Judge unless
some overt act can be proven against him.
This belief is expressed through counsel, but
Y s fair to assume that Judge Archibald ac-
cepts his attorneys construction of what con-
stitutes faithful judicial officer.
We often hear 1t said that 1t is unfair
10 remove man from Office or to refuse to
grant him Office on evidence that could not be
proven in a court of law II this means any
thing it that no matter how strong
the suspicious against an official or a candidate
for office no matter how strong the moral
certainty of his guilt; no matter how fearful
Of the truth of the charge the voter or the
zone sitting in impeachment proceedings may
be of the impartaity or integrity of the &C
cused official or candidate he should be given
the benefit OF the doubt. 1t means that II
luSit bt d FSdsoHdDle uOuDl OF pHe man CUNT
he should be retained in the office he fills or
elected to the office to which he aspires even
though there be great doubt of his innocence.
For is it not necessary In a court OF law to
prove mans guilt beyond a reasonable doubt7
There is a vast difference between taking
from man that to which he is entitled by
law and giving him that to which he is en-
titled only by sufferance. On trial for life
" freedom the prisoner is given every chance.
The burden OF proof is on his accusers A
candidate for office or one on trial for some
thing to which he has no inherent right is
not entitled to reasonable" doubt OF course,
1T is impossible to draw an arbitrary line and
say, "a doubt OF innocence beyond this point
convcts you" but grave doubt of innocence
should be sufficient to deny office or to take
away office already granted. If there be rea-
sonabe doubt of the guilt OF man on trial
for his inherent rights he should be acuuit-
ted; If there be reasonable doubt of the inno-
cence of man asking for privilege or ask
ing the retention of privilege already granted
he should be convicted