« ZurückWeiter »
signature to the whole report, but personally I think it is a matter of expediency to a certain extent. I think all the Superior Court judges ought to get five thousand dollars a year, but I do not believe the legislature would pass it, and I think a proper provision would be for all Superior Court judges to get four thousand dollars a year, except in big counties, where they should get five thousand dollars a year because the expense of living is more in those big counties.
Mr. President: Take it in our county, we have had cases there, in the last six months, involving as high as four hundred and five hundred thousand dollars. We have cases, frequently, involving twentyfive, fifty or seventy-five thousand dollars, and these judges work hard and long hours, and I do not believe there is any judge in King County or Pierce County that works harder than they do. The result would be that we would have four thousand dollar judges, with just as much work and just as able men as other judges receiving five thousand dollars. I think it ought to be evened up.
Mr. Dovell: It having been moved, as I understand it, by Judge Arthur, and seconded that this recommendation be adopted, I offer this as an amendment, that the interlineation there which refers to the judges having two or more counties in their district, be stricken out.
Mr. Arthur: I accept that.
Mr. Dovell: That would be five thousand dollars for judges in counties of the first class and four thousand dollars for judges in any other class, regardless of whether there is one or more counties in their district. That is the purpose of my motion.
Mr. President: Is there a second to the motion ?
Mr. Henderson: I do not approve of that altogether, for this reason: I have to practice in a district where the judge will have three counties, at
least, to cover, and, in travelling all over the district he works just as hard and perhaps does just as much work as any of the judges in King County and does not reside at home, is not at home one-third of the time. I do not know that living is any more expensive in King County than it would be otherwise, although the judges who have a circuit might be able to get in something on the expense basis. It seems to me they ought to be compensated for their work just as any judge in a larger county. I think it ought to be .uniform.
Mr. Cosgrove: The whole thing is inequitable. I could name districts in this State where judges do not work to exceed six months in the year, and I could name one district where the work which is done by the judge would not exceed three months in a year, and he travels around, his expenses are paid, and he is getting pretty well paid for his work now, and this adds two thousand dollars to it. There is no flat rate that could be made to equalize this and make it right.
Mr. Southard: Mr. President, I, personally, would be opposed to fixing a standard of salary that would differentiate in favor of any particular class of counties. I think that, under our system, it is the intent and purpose of the law that each judge shall be employed. I do not believe that, as a rule, the first class counties have a higher standard of judges than those of the second or third class. The judge who sits in the first class county has greater conveniences. He has every convenience at his hand. There they work regular hours. He is at home every night. He can enjoy life better than the judge in the outlying district. He does not suffer the inconveniences, and if he is no better qualified for the position than the other man I do not see that he is entitled to any greater pay. The Governor has a right to call on the judge in this county or in the adjoining counties, and they are to go at his beck
and call when they are not occupied, and the spirit and intention of the law is that they shall be occupied, and the most of them are occupied. I believe it ought to be put on a salary basis commensurate with their value to the community, and I think they all ought to receive pay alike. I should be opposed to any amendment that would differentiate in favor of the first class counties. When we fix this on a basis so that he who works as much as a first class judge is not paid as much we are doing something that is unfair. Mr.
I do not think any Superior Judge will get paid what his work is entitled to, but the idea of compensation is not what his work is worth. It is what a man can live on and yet follow the business. That is all we can hope to get from the legislature. Anyone knows that it costs more to live in King County than it does in a smaller city. As far as these that are living in the outlying districts are concerned, their expenses are all paid. I think the proposed amendment of five thousand first class and four to the smaller ones is proper.
Mr. President: You have heard the amendment. All those in favor will say aye; contrary, no. Carried.
The question is now on the original motion as amended. Those in favor of the motion as amended will say aye; contrary, no. The ayes have it. So ordered.
You have now adopted the entire report of the committee. There are some suggestions by Judge Holcomb that you may wish to hear again. If you do, the Secretary may read them.
Mr. Dovell: I move, unless that is a call to have them re-read, that they be laid on the table. The motion received a second.
Mr. Rowland: I object to that at this time. I am going to move that the last proposition of Judge Holcomb be incorporated as a part of this report and made a part of this report.
Mr. Dovell: I accept that amendment of Mr. Rowland's. I intended to make that motion. That refers to the time, does it?
Mr. Rowland: It refers to court of impeachment.
Mr. Dovell: Oh, well, then, I didn't understand it.
Mr. President: Any second to that motion ?
(The last proposition offered by Judge Holcomb is read by the Secretary.)
Mr. Dovell: Now, will you read the next clause? (Read by the Secretary.)
Nr. Dovell: Now, if Mr. Rowland will incorporate that as part of the motion, I will accept that as an amendment.
Mr. Rowland: Oh, yes, I understood that that was part of the recommendation that he proposed and that this proposal of his be incorporated into the report and presented to the legislature.
Mr. Dovell: Then I accept the amendment.
Mr. Arthur: I move that the change be so made as to affect the judges of the intermediate court, if created.
Mr. President: That is, “courts of record.”
Mr. Ludington: I move that that be made to read “courts of record,” and it also seems to me that it would be impossible for it ever to occur where a political party would have the control or majority, and it seems to me we ought to amend that, having it read that “not more than six shall be of any one political party.”. It might be a political issue sometime, which I think would be disastrous to the way that that would be received by the people, if it should create control. It seems to me that the matter of politics ought to be eliminated by reducing that number from not more than seven of one political party
to not more than six, and I would make that motion, that that change be made.
Mr. Dovell: I will acept that, too. I think there is merit in that suggestion.
Mr. President: Mr. Rowland, do you accept that?
Mr. Rowland: Yes, sir.
Mr. Southard: I would like to offer, as an amendment, that the word “derangement” be substituted in place of the word “incompetency” after the word "mental.”
Mr. Rowland: I trust that, in the consideration of this proposed amendment, we will not be sidetracked by various good suggestions as to the details of this proposed amendment. Now, this provides for a committee to draft an amendment to present to the legislature, and undoubtedly there are many matters of detail of that sort that this committee will work out, and we do not need to be sidetracked on those matters of detail. What I do want to approve, as strongly as I can, is that this Association go on record at this time in favor of some economical and better way of removing judges from office. I think it is generally considered by the bar of this Stateand if it is not so, I hope it is—that the present system of removing judges is absolutely obsolete and inadequate.
I think it is proper that they present to the legislature some workable plan whereby judges can be removed from office for incompetency or where they are unfit for the office for any reason. I believe, if the lawyers of this country had taken some such position as this a long time ago, we would not have had the agitation for recall of judges that we are having now. The mere fact that we have been so slow and so backward to recognize that there was this defect in our political system has given the opportunity for the men who appear to be in favor of the recall of judges to stir up an agitation that is sweeping