Askov American., 1943-07-01

widow with three children receiv-
ing S636 a year. This is not an argu-
ment for leveling or the elimination
of pensions.
The Tribune pleads for an "inde-
pendent, unapproachable judiciary"
Everybody should agree to that. They
also want the judges relieved from
financial worry and temptation"
That may need some elucidation.
Pay, commensurate with ability
and the amount and Importance of
the work, is in order, but if $4,000 or
$500 furnishes a good comfortable
living, will it make for more honesty
to add to it? Beyond good living
is it not character that makes for
honesty? Is it not character that re-
sists temptation? Is it not character
and frugality that saves for a rainy
day? Certainly, we are for having
men and women in public life we'll
and decently paid.
How does Mr.. Cheney propose to
keep a first term judge free from
financial worry and temptation?
Would he make him eligible for a
pension the first day he takes office?
A previously enacted law set
up retirement pensions for assO-
ciate justices of the supreme
court, commissioners of the court,
district judges, municipal judges,
and judges of probate. After rs
years service in any one or more
of those positions, the individual,
if past 10, could retire at half
pay.
If the l943 legislature thought the
25-year requirement was too much,
that might have been reduced to 20
or perhaps 18 years to make it an
even three terms, but alike for ALL
A general law also is definite and
uniform as to when and how judges
can retire. 1t should not be necessary
for a judge to stultify himself by
claiming illness shortly before the
end of his term in order to get the
pension. He should, having served
the required number of years, be
able to retire at the expiration of
his term, or, due to illness, if actually
incapacitated. Half pay, or S4,250
pension for associate justices, ought
to be enough. Full pay is not neces-
sary for decent living and comfort
after 70 or any time.
But the Hilton retirement law did
not take in all judges, nor did it
make modest reduction in the num-
Der of years of service required. That
cut was to IL years, or about half
of the usual requirement. It is a
rank piece of special legislation,
made to fit one man. By no stretch
of the imagination could it be called
statewide legislation to apply to all
judges.
In broadening the retirement law
in 1887, the legislature, by inadvert-
ance, it seems, says the Tribune,
changed the rule and made the half
pay take effect Immediately, without
the full pay for the unexpired term.
The record is there, that is what they
voted, and apparently that is what
the majority wanted, just as in 1943
the legislature voted full pay for the
balance of the unexpired term and
half pay thereafter.
A 1929 judges retirement act
was juggled around so that if the
individual had had a total of %
years service as district Judge,
county attorney, and q member
of congress and past IS. he could
retire with pension.
If this juggling continues, the next
law may make eligible for pension
a favored individual who has served
term on the supreme or district
bench and the rest of the time as
justice of the peace at Podunk.
These special acts reflect no
credit on the legislature or the
recipients of the rewards.
We still have the unfair situation
in Minnesota whereby a citizen, who
has served his state as a taxpayer
and home builder for 40, so, or go
years, must give a lien on his home
stead to the state to secure aid of
$40 to $40 per month, while another
citizen who may have served the
state shorter time and during such
time was well paid, receives a pen
sion 10 to Is times as great without
submitting to lien on his home.
There are plenty of reasons for
being opposed to special acts such
as the Hilton retirement law.