Lawyers Close Ranks Behind the Courts as Populism Roils the Bar
At the State Bar Association's Seattle session, a Spokane lawyer's attack on corporate influence in the judiciary drew a swift resolution of confidence—and a fight over nonpartisan judges and a state law school.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The session of the State Bar Association yesterday was enlivened by a discussion of several topics of the day, chief among which was “Non-partisan Election of the Judiciary,” whereon the association took occasion to rebuke those who had reflected on the impartiality of the courts and to declare its confidence in judicial integrity. The subject was brought up by a paper by Frank H. Graves, of Spokane, in which attacks were made on the courts on the ground that they are prejudiced in favor of corporations, and some Populist sentiments were expressed by the speaker, only to meet with reproof from his hearers. The result was a resolution expressing confidence in the courts, which met hardly any opposition.
The creation of a law school in connection with the state university was also discussed, and several able papers were read. The session opened at 10:30 in the morning with President Arthur in the chair, and the hall was well filled from the opening and crowded in the afternoon.
Judge Graves' paper dwelt on alleged patent evils of the partisan judiciary. According to him, the judicial mind was never free from preconceived ideas and training, and this fatal tendency had attacked the judiciary of this state with alarming vigor. Corporate influence in the courts was another crying evil. Agents of railroads and political parties made the judicial nominations, and could not be pure. He recommended an amendment to the constitution by which judges should be nominated and elected at a time when there were no other state officers to be elected.
Ex-Mayor J. T. Ronald did not indorse the paper. He thought the present judiciary of the state as clean as it was possible to be, though he felt that as a body it should be surrounded by all possible protection. He moved the appointment of a committee of five to formulate a proposed constitutional amendment for the election of judges outside a political campaign, to be presented to the next legislature.
The best business at the afternoon session was the adoption of a resolution by E. C. Hughes appointing a committee to confer with the regents of the state university with a view to establishing a law department. Charles A. Ayres, of Olympia, opposed it as an added burden on taxpayers; others answered that the university already existed and a law department would cost little. The amended constitution of the association was then read and adopted, changing the date of the annual meeting from January to July.
“The Populists had been tried and found decidedly wanting, and there was no longer a danger that a party that countenanced rebellion, boycotting and other outlawry would stand any show with the common-sense American voters.”
The 1890s fight over whether judges were beholden to railroads and corporations has a familiar ring: Washington still argues about campaign money, judicial independence, and nonpartisan elections. The Bar Association's resolution shows professional elites closing ranks even as Populists demanded a bench less friendly to corporate power.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.