Evening star., 1939-06-23

>lNOS iNiCSlOSC OcIIIIIO
Judge Monton's Case
Corruptine Influence Of Those
Who DeoIt With Him Held
Real Danger
To the Editor Of The Star:
Stranger than any feature in the case
of Martin Manton have been the edi-
torial comments following his convic-
ton upon charge involving judicial
corruption. They are disquieting because
they leave the impression of having
been written by men who are conscious
Of peril which they wish to ignore.
Again and again we are assured that
bribe-taking is not settled practice
with our Federal judges. We needed
no such assurance. We know our
judiciary is not venal. Moreover, it is
practically certain that former Justice
Mantons position was not the causative
factor in his downfall. Viewed In the
cold light of reason, his mental ire
sponsibility is as plain as the MONDAY
sun in cloudless sky. Unfortunately, to
publicly demonstrate his infirmity he had
to commit shocking crime.
We are offered the comforting as
surance that Manton was, probably,
the only dishonest Federal judge! No
doubt that is true, but it is beside the
point. The downfall of the House of
Stuart did not come from the cor
ruption OF the lord chancellor, Francis
Bacon, nor was it averted by the honesty
OF his successor, the irreproachable
Dean Williams of Westminster.
We are amazed at what has been
left unsaid. If you were considering
the advisability of entering a club, what
would you think of the chairman of
the house committee who took you
aside and assured you that the card
sharper who had wormed his way into
the club with forged credentials was the
only professional crook who had crossed
the Threshold, but suppressed the fact
that when the sharper had approached
The members with proposals that they
join the thief in playing with marked
cards, each, from the president down,
gladly agreed to sit in the game and rob
his fellow members?
So 1t is not the venality of Martin
Manton which need occasion us concern
Our real trouble lies much deeper. 1t
derives from the known cooperation the
Justice-peddling jurist received from the
members of the bar, and the litigants
VINO had cases before his court; and
from the immunity which is now, SEEM
1ngly being extended to his legal and
business accomplices, as distinguished
from his mere tools. Hundreds of law
yers, and as many highly paid executives
holding positions of trust, must, for
long period, have known of his Infamous
courses, but held their peace!
Sixty years ago, justice Of the Su-
preme Court of the United States while
in the performance of his judicial duties
exhibited moral turptude quite indis-
tlngulshable in kind from that giving
rise to the conviction Of Manton. The
only lesson it carried has been often dis
regarded: 1t is unwise and unfair to dis
regard the knowledge, inherited and ac-
quired that moral inhibitions, even
when fortified by years of rectitude and
a lifetime of honorable business and
family associations, may prove frail and
undependable in the period of late
senescence.
The mental breakdown of the associ-
ate justice of the United States Supreme
Court was pathologically different from
that OF the senior judge of the United
Of Il
consequences to the individual were the
same in each case, at least so far as
moral responsibility was concerned. But
to us, the case of the associate justice of
the Supreme Court, if measured in po-
lltlcal consequences, is as far from the
one we now have under consideration
as this planet is distant from Neptune
When the historic appeal in the Bell
Telephone case was being heard in
Washington, neither appellant nor re-
spondent, nor any attorney for any party
in interest, suspected for one moment
that one of the sitting justices was the
secret owner of a large block of stock
which in a certain event would be value
less and in another event might be worth
appeal upon which those events hung
might depend, upon the vote of the man
who was the beneficial owner of the
shares. We may well believe that in that
year and for many years thereafter, no
| great American corporation would have
/ been content to go into court with the
knowledge or suspicion that it might be
secretly favored by dishonest judge
| And, we may we'll believe that if counsel
| for the litigant company in the Supreme
| Court case knew OF the existence of such
a condition, he would Immediately have
impaired the information to his opponent
and that the hearing would have been
! deferred until it could have been heard
| by bench Of unbiased judges
Until a fortnight ago, millions of
| Americans believed that in their coun-
try success in business on large scale
was the reward of industry only when
| associated with probity and that such
success indicated the possession of a
| high sense Of business as we'll as per-
sonal honor; corollary of that article
| OF faith was another: That the ranks of
| the profession from which come our
| judges and from which our Presidents
and legislators are most largely drawn
| were composed of men who regarded
the integrity of our courts with the
! &,,,~t 1s~sA