Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1922-01-04

teal activity for the advancement
of their personal political inter-
ests.
If any man thinks from what
have said that I counsel antago-
ntsm of judges by the bar or any
actions or conduct which would
tend in the slightest degree to
shake public confidence in the
courts and judicial officers, or to
create the impression that the
public welfare will be enhanced by
a condition OF friction between the
bench and bar, he must think so
becauses he believes, whether on or
off the bench, that constructive
criticism is necessarily derogatory
to the judicial office. I believe no
such thing. / accept the code of
ethics of the American Bar Asso-
citation as the standard, not only
of my professional conduct, but as
clearly outlining my duty and OBJ
legation as a lawyer to the courts
in which l am called upon to prac-
tice my profession. / recognize our
duty to maintain the dignity and
integrity of all courts irrespective
of my opinion or your opinion of
the personal merits of any indi-
vidual occupant Of the bench, and
it is because / do recognize this
duty and obligation, which rests
upon all of us as lawyers, that /
insist upon our right to have the
active cooperation end assistance
of every judicial officer in its per-
Torrance. 1t is, in my opinion, an
essential to this cooperation that
judicial officers shall rigidly OBJ
serve both the letter and the spirit
of this constitutional provision
which was not only designed but Is
we'll calculated to maintain the
dignity and integrity of the courts
and the confidence of the people
in the administration Of Justice.
A lifelong service at the bar has
afforded ample opportunity for a
just estimate Of the evils which
flow from political activity on the
part of judicial officers. AS law
yer speaking to an association OF
lawyers ] have no hesitation in
saying that conditions in New
Mexico appear to mo to require n
united demand of the part OF the
members of the bar who agree with
me, IL there be any such, that the
judges shall refrain from activi-
ties which even appear to en-
croach upon the prohibition Gre
ated by this constitutional amend
ment; and therefore I think that
such of you as do agree with the
conclusions of this paper are I'M
der imperative obligation at all
proper times and on all proper &C.
casions to use your influence as
members of the bar in an effort to
create public sentiment which
will make it inexpedient, II not i'm
possible, for a judge to forget that
this constitutional provision applies
to him. The Judge who will yield
a legal principle to the demand of
public sentiment, however well or
ganiZed and however formidable it
may appear to be, is unfit to be a
Judge, but by the same token, the
Judge who will refuse to yield n
point of personal conduct to the
demand of a like public sentiment
is equally unfit to be Judge.
While it is undoubtedly true that
some judges who are candidates
their campaigns with deCency and
decorum, 1t is equally true that
other judges similarly situated
sometimes-and once is too often
for such a performance-bring the
law and the courts over which they
preside into serious disrepute.
In closing, l desire to call your
attention to two cases which
should furnish food for thought to
every lawyer and which, although
extreme and probably unparalleled
in all the reported cases, empha-
size the point which l seek to
make.
In re Thatcher $50 N. f. 40) IS
a case which received at the time
it occurred wide publicity. Thatch-
er was disbarred by the supreme
court of the state of Ohio, June %,
1909, under these circumstances.
He was apparently a successful
lawyer of 20 years standing who
made a speciality of the prosecu-
ton of suits for damages for per-
sonal injuries, and who at the time
of his dsbarment had over fifty
such cases actually pending in the
courts. He was unwise enough 20
indulge himself in a feud with
Judge Morris, one of the judges of
the court OF common pleas of Lu-
cas- county, Ohio, and had availed
himself of the provisions of sta
tute which authorized litigant TO
, remove a cause because of alleged
prejudice of the judge in many
cases. Judge Morris had directed
verdicts against him in many OF
these cases, in some of which he
had succeeded in securing a re-
versal. Judge Morris was n can
didate to succeed himself as one of
, the Judges of the court Of common
pleas and, prior to the election,
! Thatcher published and circulated
pamphlets couched in more or less
scurrilous language attacking the
fairness of the judicial conduct OF
Judge Morris and alleging the
claim which all of us have so Oft
en- heard-that Judge Morris was
a tool of the corporations and was
against the people and that poor
man had no chance in his court
a hired trumpeter and crippled
ClleHIt d6dlllSL WUUIll JuuSb MOi
, ris had directed a. verdict, he made
business of attending where
large numbers OF working men
were accustomed to go to or from
, their places Of labor and there dis
|, tributed these pamphlets.
The opinion in the case merits
, careful reading by every member
of the bar and especially by those
who favor an elective judiciary
The ground of his disbarment
broadly stated, was that he knew
that the allegations contained ir
these pamphlets were false, and
that he sought TO destroy the con-
, fidence and the prestige of Judge
! Morris as one OF the judges OF
the court of common pleas. As
, read the case he insisted at every
stage of the proceeding that he
conscientiously believed what he
,, said about Judge Morris to be true
and while i do not defend his
,, methods or his pamphlets, / an
! forced to conclude as a lawyer
! that the finding of the court