The chronicle=news., 1914-09-04

privileges will not be privileges.
rights and liberties longer, unless
-pefroTce We siibstYtute for the exist
ing judiciary committees of the peo-
pie of some sort which shall adjudi-
cate. these matters instead of the
courts that now be.
AS long as we have system pre-
sided over and attempted to be i'm
partially administered through
courts proper. these courts are the
institutions of the people, and the
man who sits there is often times of
less ability than the man pleading
before him. yet. he IS distinctly the
peoples judge If he is honest. 4
/ have found since being on the
bench that the attitude or training
that the bench gives is 80 different
from that of the advocate which L
followed for some .twenty-two years
Heretofore. 1t is almost a marvel
how different the attitude of man
seems to he after experiencing the
bench. TO one who has served some
time on the bench. and he alone. can
fully appreciate how partisan this
experience as an advocate tends to
make one and how different in be-
lieved freedom from prejudice is the
experience upon the bench.
say. so long as these institutions
and courts shall he our arbiters in
stead of other forms of government,
its adhcrents should refrain from
criticism until after the pending cas-
es are closed.
Critics sm is wholesome, but never
was means to influence the court in.
its deliberations. The same person
who has been circulating this petit
tion. and as well, everyone in the
realm. IL they believe in tho institu-
| ton of courts, could not truly desire
| to subject them to intimidation. but
above all, shall We ascribe to the
legislature an intention to curtail
that respect for that institution. or
to hamper 1t? Shall we ascribe to
to the people themselves who have
claims before the same courts, and
before which are sometimes involved
their constitutional. prerogatives and
privileges. and especially, of the one
accused of crime. an intention to les
sen the power of the courts? No. not
Iuntil different scheme of arbitration
or adjudication Is provided. Legis-
latures never did so intend. nor any
OF the people who proposed the
lTwenty-first Amendment II they un-
derstood the government they were
tinkering with. They never intend
ed the procedure of recall TO be used
FOR the purpose of bringing into con-
tempt the institution of the court. or
II bearing undue influence upon the
mind of the judge directly. as the
matter now under consideration.
1t is my Judgment. based upon my
limited ability and experience. that
here is no privilege or constitutional
light granted for q petition for the
recall to contain improper and con-
'emptuous statements as TO any pend
ing matter. whether true or false.
that would intimidate, or tend to I'M
oede or obstruct the administration
Of Justice in the popular court. or
any other court established by law,
,ither constitutional or statutory.
Whether the legislature or people
| submitting the amendment and
adopting 1t intended that the matters
or acts of the court recited in the pc
tition for recall after the case was
concluded. could be scathins and un-
restricted. there is not occasion here
TO pass upon.
This information reveals these
matters: AS far as | understand the
Belk case and the Uhlich case are
| still pending in this court and are
undetermined: the petition and the
| recitals therein. and the petition Tor
| recall reveal that there was con-
.rast between these two persons as
20 their treatment because of their
| belonging to opposing forces In the
industrial warfare well known to all
| The reading citizens, the protective
| association assuming to protect the
| mine owners on the one hand and
:he others represented by Organizer
.ippiatt constituting the opposing
'ontending parties.
The statement that "Man-killer
Belk whose hands rcek with blood
rom the Staying of Organizer Lip
piatt" is prejudicial and would have
he tendency to prevent a fair trial of
Belk In this court; recitals of the
belief of the people as to the inno-
cence of uhlich would be against and
20 the prejudice OF the case of the
people: and the recitals directed to
the presiding judge as being at the
beck and call of representatives of
Rockefeller. or being Il tool of par
tisan in the industrial warfare, are
OF themselves contemptouous. and
since the cases are pending, have
no other conclusion. as view the
law. but that 1t is contemptuous per
Sc. this circulating OF the matters in
the petition. and the publication in,
the newspaper here informed of and
which appears there. 1t has been
suggested that there are three counts