Phoenix tribune., 1924-11-01
AINSWORTH HOLDS
STATE courts MUST
BE NON-PARTISAN
Speech by Charles F. Ainsworth,
Candidate for Judge of Supreme
Court Delivered Phoenix, oc-
tober 2oth.

Court Delivered Phoenix, oc-
: tober 29th.
- "Fellowcitizens l will talk to you
tonight for a few minutes from the
view point of a judicial candidate" !"
"The constitution of Arizona has
wisely removed the judiciary from
partisan politics providing that no
candidate for Judge of the Supreme
Bench shall be placed on the ballot
to be voted for at the general
election as a party candidate The
wisdom of this is apparent, for in
deciding a case the Judge must de
eide impartially on the facts and
law applicable to the facts without
thought of the political effect of
his decision. This makes the sole
qualification of judicial candidate
character, legal ability and expert
ence and locality. Character to
stand impartially for equal justice to
all, the interest of the State first
at heart. Legal ability consists
Of foundation of careful schooling,
professional training and ripe ex-
eprience. Then comes the qualifica-
tion of locality.
1T has been the universal rule in
appointing judges to the Supreme
( Bench of the United States, and in
= electing them to the Supreme Court
OF a state, to give representation
to the various sections of both state
and nation. Different localities with
their different environments, resources
and industries have different needs,
and their laws are therefore framed
to sustain such needs, and a Judge
must of necessity know the laws
governing the locality he represents.
4 Arizona, since admission to State
hood, has adhered to this rule in the
selection of judges for the Supreme
Court. The Northern section, with
its lumber, mining and grazing, is
represented by judge Ross. The
Southern section, with its mining
and grazing, is represented by Judge
McAllister. The central and south
western section of Arizona, with
agriculture practically it's sole in
dustry has been represented ever
since Statehood, first Judge Franklin,
then judge Baker, and now Judge
Lyman's refusal to be a candidate
for reelection has resulted in my
candidacy to succeed him in repre-
senting this agricultural section on
the Supreme Bench.
For Sc years l have been resi-
dent of Maricopa County, having
come here with a college and Wis
consin law school training, and 10
years practice as District Attorney
of Jackson County, Wisconsin. l
have practiced law in the Supreme
Court of the United States since
1900, and was Attorney General of
the Territory of Arizona for four
years. Since Statehood l have neith-
er held public office nor have been
candidate for public office, unlike
my opponent from Cochise County,
who claims to have held public
office for ten of the twelve years
since Statehood, and has yet two
years to serve in the office he now
holds He does not intend to give
up his present office until he makes
sure of another
Il am making my campaign for
judge of the Supreme Court in strict
compliance with the non-partisan
intent of the Constitution of our
State. l am not stumping the State
with any party candidates as the
Constitution and laws of Arizona do
not warrant a candidate for the
Supreme Court Ia non-partisan Of
fice) discussing party politics nor
claiming precedence on account of
party affiliations or political belief.
Any man who claims to be lawyer,
who runs for judge of the Supreme
Court and seeks the support of the
voters of this State by telling them
he is running for non-partisan Of
flee as required by the Constitution
of Arizona, but that he is a good
Republican or good Democrat or a
good Progressive, is what is common
ly known as a political demagogue,
trying 10 impress his hearers with the
idea that notwithstanding his election
to non-partisan office, he will,
nevertheless. be the same old parts
an Republican, or partisan Democrat,
partisan Progressive. Then, may 1
ask, why the Constitution require
ment that the names of judges for
the Supreme Court shall be placed
without partisan designation at the