Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1919-01-30
|JUDgEs FAVOR
PRESENT Law
-FOUR MEMBERS or SUPREME
COURT ARGUE FoR NON
PARTISAN ELECTIONS.
sALlNeER LEADS IN
REPEAL OPPOSITION
Ladd, Gaynor and stevens Appear Be-
fore House and Senate comn'ittssss
to Testify in Behalf Of Present Law
Clair, Court 10 Left Free From
Political Entanglsmsnts.

Des Moines, Jan. 30.--At confer
cnce of both the senate and house
committees on elections held In the
senate committee rooms "Wednesday
to which the judges OF the supreme
court were invited, four out OF the
seven members of the supreme court
appeared and argued in favor OK the
retention of the present nom partisan
judiciary law with some possible minor
amendments. The conference was held
especially to consider the bill intro
duced by Senator Price, OF Monroe
county, to repeal the nonpartisan judi
ciary law.
Chief Justice Ladd. Justices Gaynor,
stevens and Salinger were present ana
argued for the retention OF the non
partisan feature of selection of can
didates for judgeships in a primary.
Each Of the judges was asked num-
Der OF questions by members OF the
committees.
Justice Ladd. who stated he had been
elected under beth systems. declared
that a Judge selected under the present
primary law felt more free than under
the old system. He enumerated four
teen states which have a nonpartisan
judiciary law similar to the one in this
state. He said it was possible under
the county convention system for
special interests to get in their work.
which was not possible under the
present law.
I'VE must have men selected who
have no incentive to do other than
the right in any case" said Justice
Ladd.
Minor Changes Proposed.
Judge Gaynor said the law would
work out better as the voters became
more familiar with it. He declared
the nonpartsan theory is a true theory
and agreed with Justice Ladd that
Judge feels more free when elected on
a ronpartsan primary ticket than by
convention. He suggested there should
be provisions enacted to eliminate
plunking and that the nonpartisan
ticket should appear on 1.-The northeast
quarter of the northeast quarter" OF
the ballot The reason for this war,
he said. that it should he separated
far enough from the other tickets so
tHdl pciSOHS Siooiu icSoShi"S1 IL "S -
distinct ticket. but he opposed having
a separate ballot.
Justice Stevens declared that in his
judgment the. nonpartisan feature or
the present law should be retained
particularly because ofHhe freedom it
gave to judge after erection.
Justice Salinger said the present law
has it's faults but as long as human
nature is as it Is no system would
work perfectly.
There are people who would have
YOU repeal the law of supply and
demand" said Judge SAlinger.
The important thing" he declared in
speaking for the present law, lis to
make us set up there as bankrupts-
to owe 50 many people for our election
and we don't know any of them"
He said the fact that there was a
small vote cast for judges as COM
pared to the general vote was in the
laws favor rather than against it. He
said the nonpartisan balloting repre-
sented the difference between vote
and selection, that the nonpartisan
balloting was selection. He argued
that it was the lawyers who were
largely interested and who should be.
III I had my way l would make it
bar selection he declared in arguing
that the selection Of candidates for
judge should be largely left to the
lawyers.