Court Opinion

ID: 9418444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:25:43.701587+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:15.042027
License: Public Domain

*42Mr. Justice McReynolds,
dissenting.
-Tarn unable to follow the' reasoning of the opinion approved by the majority or to feel fairly' certain of its scope and consequence. If an admitted .anarchist charged with murder should affirm án existing prejudice against himself and specify that the judge had made certain depreciatory remarks concerning all anarchists, what would be the result? Suppose official stenographic notes or other clear evidence should demonstrate the falsity of an affidavit, would it be necessary for the judge to retire? And what should be done if dreams or visions were the basis of an alleged belief?
.The conclusion announced gives effect to the statute which seems unwarranted by its terms and beyond the probable intent of.. Congress. Bias and prejudice are synonymous words and denote “an opinion or leaning adverse to anything without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge”; — a state of mind. The statute relates only to adverse opinion or leaning towards an individual and has no application to the appraisement of a class, e. g., revolutionists, assassins, traitors.
To claim personal bias without more is insufficient; “the facts and the reasons for the belief that such bias or prejudice exists” must be set out, and plainly, I think, this must be done in order that the judge or any. reviewing tribunal may determine whether they suffice to support honest belief in the disqualifying state of mind.
Defendants’ affidavit discloses no adequate ground for believing that personal feeling existed against any. one of them. The indicated prejudice was towards certain malevolents from Germany, a country then engaged in hunnish warfare and notoriously encouraged by many of its natives who, unhappily, had obtained citizenship -here. The words attributed to the judge (I-do not credit the affidavit’s accuracy) may be fairly construed as show*43ing only deep detestation for all persons of German extraction who were at that time wickedly abusing privileges granted by our indulgent laws.
Of course, no judge should preside if he entertains actual personal prejudice towards any party and to this obvious disqualification Congress added honestly, entertained belief of such prejudice when based upon fairly adequate facts and circumstances. Intense dislike of. a class does not fender the judge incapable of administering complete justice to one of its members. A public officer who entertained no aversion towards disloyal German immigrants during the late war was simply unfit for his place. And while “An overspeaking judge is no well tuned cymbal” neither is an amorphous dummy unspotted by human emotions a becoming receptacle for judicial power. It was not the purpose of Congress to empower an unscrupulous defendant seeking escape from merited, punishment to remove a judge solely because he had emphatically condemned domestic enemies in time of national danger. The personal concern of the judge in matters of this kind is indeed small, but the concern of the public is very great.
In my view -the trial judge committed no error when he considered the affidavit, held it insufficient, and refused to retire.