The Judge Who Refused to Step Aside

Judge Robinson passed on the motion for a change of venue in the Minkler case at the opening of the superior court this morning. He reviewed the various grounds upon which the same was made, holding that the showing was insufficient as to the prejudices of the people of this county.

'The defense fails to bring to the attention of the court the affidavit of a single person residing in Thurston county corroborating the belief of the defendant,' said the court.

After reviewing other grounds of the motion, he took up the question of the prejudice of the judge, whom it was claimed was prejudiced against the defendant because of his former relations with The Tribune, and in discussing this question said:

'Only as to the grounds of prejudice on the part of the judge of this court did I hesitate to deny this application at the time it was heard yesterday. But the thought that this defendant believed the court prejudiced against him caused me to hesitate, and at that time I was very much inclined to grant the change or call in another judge (the latter of which I may yet do). On the one hand I felt the unpleasant and delicate position in which the belief of defendant placed me, and upon the other I felt very strongly the duties of the superior judge of Thurston county. Looking only to my personal wishes, I should not have hesitated to grant the change. But the more I considered the different phases of this charge, recognizing its utter falsity, and the more thoughtfully I examined the provisions of sections 1198 and 99 of Hill's code, the more thoroughly I became convinced that this was not a question to be settled in the light of any feelings of personal pride on my part, or in the exercise of a desire not to sit in a cause where either party in interest might feel that justice would not be done, or that they might not get a fair and impartial trial as far as the judge was concerned; but upon mature thought I was convinced that there was a principle involved in the determination of this motion so far as it touched the judge of this court. If changes of venue are to be granted upon the mere belief of prejudice, or because someone may be willing to so swear, and because of the judge's relations with some newspaper publishing the news, then there is no principle involved; but if they are to be invoked and granted only when prejudice really exists, then this becomes a very important proceeding.

'Judges are human. They may be prejudiced. Nay, they sometimes are. Not as often, however, as narrow-minded people sometimes think; but yet often enough. But a large majority of courts lift themselves above bias, prejudice or ill-feeling. It is easy to say that the judge is prejudiced when a change is desired. I feel sure that counsel will not consider it personal when I say that it is not a difficult task to file an affidavit alleging simple belief in the individual prejudice of a judge, based perhaps upon some alleged facts which under any other circumstances, or for any other purpose, would never suggest prejudice in the mind of anyone. Very many times these affidavits are born of the evil suspicions of some disgruntled attorney who universally pleads to his clients the prejudices of the judge, in defense for the loss of his cases and his own weakness. And this affidavit once made and filed, and the court is so situated that he feels a delicacy in denying the motion or in hearing the cause, simply because the charge has been made, while the attorney smiles at his shrewdness, and winks at the poor client who signed the affidavit, not by reason of the prejudice in the mind of the court, but in the mind of the attorney. But in my judgment the judge has no right to yield to such feelings of delicacy, though they may represent the finer feelings of manhood.

'If there exists any bias or prejudice in the mind of the judge for or against the parties in any case, if he be fit to hold such a position, he will not await a motion of this character; and that judge who conscientiously feels that he has no prejudices in the case exercises less than the courage of his convictions, and shirks his duties and responsibilities, if he fails to deny such an application. Then, dismissing from my mind all those feelings personal to myself as an individual, and facing the proposition purely as an officer under my oath as any other matter before me for determination, knowing that in the mind of the present judge of this court there is not and never was the least tinge of bias or prejudice for or against this defendant, I have no hesitancy in denying this motion. Believing that this defendant can receive a fair and impartial trial in Thurston county, in the broadest and most sacred sense of that term, the motion for a change of venue is denied.'