Askov American., 1943-05-27

IuSeO lO resign, III IclSiiiiiS tiiC CiioAu-
ments of the office, little matter OF
$500 a year, to a successful full
membered court
Sen. Weber goes on: Backed by
attorneys and judges of the state
the Legislature this year voted q
pension to retiring judges, who be-
cause of ill health could not continue
The pension law that was passed
allows such a judge full salary fol
the balance of his term and half sal
ary for the remainder of his life.
1T did not take Mr.. Hilton long to
resign after passage of this mon
strosity in the form of legislation
In fact, the ink was scarcely dry on
the bill signed by the governor, max
ing it law, when the resignation was
forthcoming.
The SlaytOn senator adds that
mir. Hilton should be quite
ashamed of himself" and "the
glory that has been his fades
completely in the selfish grab he
now accepts"
There can be little if any defense
of Mr.. Hilton, who has done very
little court work the last half dozen
years, but Senator Weber, who
trains with the conservatives that in
the main voted for and put over this
''monstrosity" (using his description
might also have turned some of his
guns on his colleagues and the gov
ernor who signed the bill. He did
state that the bill was backed by
attorneys and judges of the state. y
Here is the record:
The House has total member
ship of 13l. The bill passed with a
bare majority of 66, and AZ voted
against it. The House has % attor-
neys, not one of whom voted in the
negative. The House journal shows
lS attorneys voting for it and at
torneyS not voting.
The total Senate membership is 81.
The percentage of attorneys here is
much greater than in the lower body,
there being 20 senators who belong
to the legal profession.
The vote in the Senate was 35 for
and 80 against OF the 29 attorneys,
81 voted for the bill The unanimous
vote Of attorneys was not needed
here. One attorney, Senator o. j.
Finstad of Window, spoke against the
bill. Credit, however, is due the
attorneys who voted their convic-
tions, representing their constituency
mot their clients-and without spec
ulation on possible appearances be-
fore courts.
Though Senator Weber usually
votes with the group that put over
the bill, he also must be given credit
in this instance for opposing it.
The record, of course, shows that
others than attorneys voted for the
bill, as they have sometimes unsus-
pectingly voted for other unwhole-
some legislation
The judges absence from work,
rendering him n m p ent,
should have been made known
to the voters in 1910 inasmuch
as he did not voluntarily refrain
from seeking reelection. If re-
elected in spite of such revela-
ton, which would be doubtful,
there are other methods of deal
ing with the situation than that
of paying him to get out. There
always must be ways of Ousting
public officials who do not work.
1t may be argued that there was
no other way of removing this judge
from the high tribunal to which he
was elected to sit in judgment and
render important services to the
state. A layman can wonder what
legal ethics (that we hear SO much
about from the attorneys) permits a
judge to draw big salary paid by
the taxpayers, while rendering no
service to the state.
Does that constitute fraud upon
the public? Are some judges above
the domain of legal ethics? And how
about the ethics of those voting for
and signing legislation that gives a
reward" of $500 to favored in
dividual and S636 aid to a widow
with three children?
Conservatives want their quota on
the bench. There was danger from
non-participation in the writing of
opinions, and so it was deemed safest
to have their governor appoint some
one who would be on the job for
them Instead of proper procedure,
this was it: To get rid of an incom-
petent conservative who sticks, buy
him off by retiring with handsome
reward"
The all too common theory in
conservative big business philOs-
Ophy, that every one has price,
here seems too obvious.
The special act, passed as it was,
by the skin of its teeth in both legis-
lative bodies, would have been dead