The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-06-26
Federal Judge Hopping Mad
About Federal Examiners.
Styles Investigations of Courts
''EspiOnage."
SITUATION Is "INTOLERABLE"
Takes for Granted That All
Judges Above Suspicion.
Gloomy Future in Scrutiny of
Court Behavior.

Sioux City. Ia, June 26-Criticism of
the department of justice for "Arbi-
trary espionage of investigation of
federal judges by means of examiners.
by Judge Emory Speer, United States
judge for the Southern district of
Georgia, was a feature of the annual
meeting of the Iowa State Bar associa-
ton, which met here today.
Situation "IntoIerabIe."
Judge Speer spoke with great vigor
and emphasis. declaring the situation
as 'intolerable.' He said in part:
More dangerous than the power to
disqualify a judge is the power to dis
grace and defame him. My brethren,
ask you to consider if, in the utter alb
sence of all charges against him. is not
the recently adopted method of arbi-
trary espionage or investigation of a
judge, made bv examiners, as they are
termed. of the department of justice,
under the direct order of the attorney
general to maltreat American judges
with cruel and apparently callous in
difference to their reputation and good
name. 1 speak impersonally and with
all due respect for the head of a de-
partment who is ex officio, the leader
of the American Bar. He is, however,
also the leading counsel for the govern
ment, and no matter how considerate,
how equable in thought and language,
how completely nonpartisan he may be,
ought any lawyer to have inquisitorial
power over the judge who is to try his
cases? And, least of all, should this
power be exercised in land where the
independence of the Judiciary is the
very foundation stone of the national
structure. Is it not indeed intolerable
that the lawyer who is the leading
counsel for the government shall have
within his power and control, the right
to question the honor and character,
official and personal of the judges upon
whom determinations of all national
Jurisdiction must depend?
Does Not Like Being Watched.
True, the attorney general can act
at any time and make any accusation
he thinks proper, as can any citizen,
but can he constitutionally exert the
powers, detail the officials, utilize the
machinery and expend the money of
the government in inquisitorial exam
nations of a judge, appointed by the
president and confirmed by the senate,
behavior? Where is the constitutional
right or statutory authority?
Disturbs Heavy Thought.
Does this not commit to a lawyer
on one side of a multitude of cases, the
right to investigate the title to his of
flee of the trial of appellate judge, and
if this could ever be properly done,
should it ever be done without notice
to the judge and information to him
of the complaints against him? Would
even the president, with all his init
iative and power, attempt this, and if
the attorney general has no such pow
er, can his examiner lawfully appear
at the court and officially en-
ter upon the inquisition of a
Judge? And, finally, If there
could ever be a shred of propriety in
such action. should it ever be done
when the court is in actual session and
when the judge should be undisturbed
in those absorbing, intense and ex-
acting intellectual efforts and labors on
which the rights of property and of
liberty must depend? Who is the ex-
aminer of the department of justice?
Examiners Appear.
'I have loked in vain through the
statutes to find the definition of his
duties This critic and censor of
judges need not be a practitioner or
even a lawyer. For many years. how