The Seattle Star Newspaper, November 6, 1916, Page 11

STAR—MONDAY, NOV. 6, 1916. Milo A. Root Is Untit PAID ADVER for Superior Court Judge PAGE 11 THE RECORD PROVES IT |. The judiciary is the final arbiter of American Liberty, '... HE SHOULD BE ABOVE SUSPICION. By his own confession he is a weakling. He betrayed his trust, as he says, “for a friend.” The friend proved Ungrateful and Judge Root and his sins were exposed. His gross commissions were six in number JUDGE ROOT, as a justice of the Supreme Court, rode on free passes furnished by gants before him JUDGE ROOT solicited and obtained passes for his relatives from the Great N J On several occasions. JUDGE ROOT solicited a campaign $300 from M. J. Gordon, attorney of the Great Northern railroad. ; JUDGE ROOT wrote letters and sent telegrams tr Judge Gordon, ur { t ect him in Seattle about oot. “by pre 3 es JUDGE ROOT wrote an opinion, which found ag t Northern railroad, laid down a Principle of us to the i depart ment, and g that opi mitted it to Judge Gordon in Spokane, who sent it on to the company’s head offices in St. Paul. That opinion w: revised ta suit the railroad and the attorneys for the rail- road, and was then returned to Judge Root, who handed it down as the opinion of the court JUDGE ROOT, con railroads who were liti rthern Railroad, not once, t ontribution of matters that nises ma ng the Great law obne ter v trans- Judge Root ted by these charges, the fear of exposure, and certainty of an official investigat ‘ his a 3 fire. tendered i resignati ourt to which he had but a short ted Let us now examine letters that he Great respond- bot’s acts became public through ¢ Gordon ¢ In this Judge had passed be Northern | ween him and Jud ay’s legal department ence the eared letters whict ilged the manner in which the n the Harris case Was writt ludge Gor after a « ¢ with € er cor spondence, dictated and ser t an opinion ich was t ate filed as t n of the court The Harris was an action brought the SMBreat Nort! tailway for of goods sb over awarded damages in the lower that line. Harris had be court, and it came to was rmed. <A pet by the railway company Judge Root wrote the of ne Court on appeal, and n for rehear filed was then m denying a rehearing But, J Gord obje to the law laid therein, be t did not suit the railway com y, and because he de pinion as would make red it to be such an of railway difficult in other suits the recovery pending. A copy of Judge Root’s opinion reached Judge Gordon before it became a-part of the Supreme Court's records. Judge Gordon wrote an opinion of his own covering the Taw involved as he wanted it covered, sent this to his chief counsel in St. Paul, who gave it his O. K Opinion was then rned to afterwards a All this was est that it is only that Judge R to evade this particular charge, as nd this 1 it was urt n we ec wh part oi ot's admissior are a Judge Root pettifogs now when he says the Harris decision was nst the Harris receivin damages is ¢ when Gor Opinion ’ which, to qu railroad company. So far as ncerned he won, but expedient of writing tne nouncement ¢ rule er to his chi wi like ir be of the ut us r cases in port,” he secur nt of far more value to his clients than to Har When Judge Root ment in 1905 the state constitution had sixteen years. In assuming office Judge Root took oath to support the state constitution, Section 20, Article 12, of which prohibited the issuance of free transportation for public officials. The legislature of 1905 passed a law which declared t upon the bench by appoint- been in force the issuance of free transportation, except to employes of railway ies and eleemosynar titutions, etc., to be unl é fixed a penalty for violation of this act (See Session Laws, pages 157-8 This law went into effect in June, 1905, wing, 1906, Judge Root not only rode iber of the Supreme Court, but we ence that he solicited and obtained passes through Judge M. J. Gordon, general solicitor for the Great Northern Railway Company at Spokane, and at the time this railway company, represented by Judge Gordon as counsel, was a litigant in the Supreme Court in cases coming frequently before Judge Root as a member of that The year judicial b in Department No. 1 g County Court House, before a special ce i Root used the Ww be a man who will place duty above every other “Now, the committee did, however, say that IT had been guilty of some serious improprieties, for instance: they reported that I held a pass from the Great Northern Railway Company, which I did not deny; which I admit ted—a pass that I had used, I did not deny it, and did not attempt to At that time, you gentlemen all know that practically every judge in the State of Wash- ington held a pass iy it Whether or not t ge Roc there is a pass, and that and at a time when both the state constitution and the statutes of the State of Washington prohibited the use of passes by anyone except employes of the transpor- tation companies, and that anyone else was guilty of the same transgression does not vindicate him, is last statement is true ssion that he held Jud he used it s own adn ( g back to the record of the investigation of Judge Root, following his resignation in January, 1909, we find the ng letters, which are a part of the official rec- ord of tigatior Root Gordon, on the Supreme Court letter head dated Olympia, Washington, April 3,.1906, “My dear Judge: My brother, W. S. Root, is soon coming west and I would transportation can do so, pl asy y appreciate it if you would send me r him from St. Paul to Seattle, If you ¢ mail the same to me at Seattle as soon Your very truly, Milo A. Root for we find vi u can cc ently ise was immediate. is as follows: “Honorable April 6, 1906. My dear your request of the 3rd, I you herewith transportation for for thirty days from this Washingtor wit Pp casure in har mur brother from St. Paul to Seatt date. Sincerely yours, M. J. ¢ nd then we find that Judge Root’s brother was not satisfied with coming west once, but he came twice, for Septe 1906, to be exact d letter head of the Supreme Court of the ton, under date of Olympia, is the fol- judge: I ha ip taking the trip t ther, W. S. Root, fon." in September followi on the pri State of Wash lowing Dear y g nth. I would like r from St ul to Seattle nd to me? If so, kindly mail a Thank you in advance for rant, 1] beg to remain, y« very the record shows to Root: “Spokane lo A. Root, Olympia, Washington leasure in handing you herewith tran V. S.-Root and wife, St. Paul to 1 until December 24, 1906. Signed this communt- September 24 ber 26th, Judge Root communication, saying transportation received ily, Milo A. Root oves conclusively acknowledged “My dear Judge: Thank you very Yours very This we think, 7 that Judge Root, while a member of the Supreme Court, violated his oath of of to rt the constitution, which f« ite the issuance of free passes to public officials, and that he broke “ a law the State of Washington passed the previous ye n effect for more than ‘one year, which declared it free transportation except to e es her matter and Judge Root which had ex the latter, on his own confession 1 assurances received,” for in a letter August 1, 1908, to Judge Gordon, that there between Jur ceedingly embarrasse by “pre written by is found thi m exceedingly made <« Judge Roc paragraph embarrassed by promises made on assurances re ed. If they can be jogged up a little it uld help the situatior Begging pardon ar ing u,v h I wou never have done only ty, I beg to remain as ever, very vestigating committee makes this observation This letter is suggestive regarding this communica of some financial transaction.” Judge Gordon refused to explain it Judge Root said it referred solely to a campaign contribution of three hundred dollars, which Gordon said would be made by some contractors and business men of Spokane. The com- mittee found itself barred from probing this matter fur- ther by a constitutional provision prohibiting them from witnesses to testify in such referred to compelling unwilling But Ju Root's own r ed de r contribution, and the solicitous na of the letter of August Ist, show conclusively Judge s anxiety to be relieved of his embarrassment admission that it In the record is found another undated communica tion, apparently bearing on this same subject, in which Judge Root said: “ “Explanation them a little when convenient, because I am quite embarrassed by promises made by reason of assurances received It is evident that Judge Root banked heavily on the received.” satisfactory; however, crowd Te urance Before taking up the record in the Harris case, let us revert to the statement referred t Judge Root to the Seattle Bar Association on the evening of 20 last Judge Root said: above, made by October “Harris got a judgment of fourteen hundred dollars or something like that, against the railway company. The court in the manner, argued by the re- case was appealed to our usual briefed by the respective attorneys, spective attorneys, and we went into our consultation room to discuss it. We discussed it as we always did important cases. When we came to the vote three of the judges believed that it ought to be decided in favor of the railway company, and they voted to so decide it The other four of us, it against the railway company. I wrote the opinion That came to me just by chance. The method there was to go right around the table in regular order and when f whom | was one, voted to decide ever it was my turn or anybody else’s turn, the case was assigned to him, regardless of anything else, except only, provided that he was with the majority, and by chance it happened to come to me to write the opinion I wrote the opinion, after giving it careful consideration, as an important case like that would require, and decided against the corporation,” But we should not confuse this, the original of with the opinion in controversy, which was an opinion written upon a motion for rehearing. lud advertise- ¢ Root has pettifogged when, in his ments, he refers to the fa this opinion decided against the railway cc any and that he wrote it. Let us see what he ut the opinion on the rehearing Here it is: “Judge Ge ¢ in one day when he was over shortly after this nion (on rehearing) was written, and he said: ‘That is a rotten opinion which you wrote.’ I replied in some kind of an answer chaffingly, and then he started in to talk about it and discussed it, saying th it was absolutely inconsistent with the federal court decisions and that we must reverse it. Now, that was a discussion without the other attorney being present, which I myself told the com mi and I d t believe that they knew it until I had told the An impropriety y vay call it, perhaps unethical—a mistake. When the opinion on rehearing was filed it decided the case against the company, making a shght modification in the language, which I believe was essential to make it right in line with the rule laid wn t c to Olymy she frequently di e.¢ vy the federal court. Now there was the only irregularity part The investigating committee of the State Bar its report upon this matter, found that Judge on of the Supreme aomy Asso- ciation, in Root dictated a draft of a proposed opini , Court upon this petition for rehearing; that Judge Root lraft of opinion to any of the other of the same by mail the 14th day of mailed urt, but sent a copy 0 Gord pokane shortly prior May, 1908; that Gordon on that day at Spokane a letter to Judge Root vigorously complaining about the opinion which he supposed had been filed as the that on May 18, 1908, Judge Root replied to this letter of Gordon's, informing the latter that the supposed opinion had not been filed, and expressing a desire on the part of Root to see Gordon; that soon thereafter Gordon went to Olympia and met Judge Root, and that they discussed the case, as Judge Root admit- ted in the address to the Seattle Bar Association referred to above; and Gordon that Judge Root suggested that he, Gordon, “reflect” his views of the that upon returning to his office in Spokane, Gordon dictated to his clerk and assistant, Mr. Joseph Lavin, an opinion in the case upon the petition for rehearing; that Gordon enclosed the same in a letter to Mr. W. R. Begg of St Paul, the general solicitor of the Great Northern Railway Company, and Judge Gordon's chief, at that time; that Mr. Begg, pursuant to the request of Gordon, telegraphed to the latter that the draft of the opinion prepared by atisfactory to the railway company, and re- Spokane in a letter dated June delivered to wrote and opinion of the court case; Gordon was turned the same to him in S 8, 1908; that very thereafter Judge Root the above mentioned draft of opinion as pre pared by Gordon himself, and that this was subsequently filed verbatim as the opinion of the court These findings are all supported by the correspond- ence between Root and Gordon, Gordon and Begg and Begg and Gordon, and all of the letters touching upon this matter are a part of the official record. In a letter written by Judge Gordon to Mr. W. R Begg. his superior, in which the draft of Gordon's opinion was enclosed, the latter Gordon soon said eferred to case mentioned in printed opinion en closed herewith There was an imperative reason for doing so ot to have done so meant the same result. To have done so enables us in a measure to make the law easier for the future. Fur ther explanation I will give you in person. I have pre- pared and herewith hand you a memo of opinion which seems to me states the law and will be of utmost value to us in the future cases of like import. * * * If you are satisfied with this memorandum, kindly wire the single word dditional change you wish made, let me have it at once. I beg to assure you that, although this is typewritten, that it is my handiwork, and IT would thank you to return it, together with enclos- ure, under personal cover to me.” We have paid this judgment ‘Satisfactory.’ If there is any The case is up to you for you to decide. and every Judge should not only be above reproach, but, like Caesar’s wife, The man who sits upon the bench should be more than a man of, legal attainments, a good neighbor, or a professed Christian. He should consideration, and who has the courage to do his duty uncompromisingly and unflinchingly. MILO A. ROOT DOES NOT MEASURE UP TO THAT STANDARD Mr. Begg’s response to Judge Gordon said: “I have your personal letter of the 3rd with reference to opinion in Harris against Great Northern. I wired you this morn- ing that the opinion on rehearing was satisfac tory. I ree turn the enclos Yours truly, Wm. R. Begg.” The convincingly establishes the fact that Judge Gordon did write the opinion on the rehearing in the Harris case, in the interest of the railroad company, which Root handed down as the opinion of the court. record The correspondence between Gordon and Root cove ered Judge Root’s entire term of office as a justice of the Supreme Court. In 1905-6 he was requesting .and receiving passes, About the time the legislature had passed the anti-pass law, that correspondence shows that Judge Gordon had sent to Judge Root annual Pass No. 01931 for the current year, good over the Great Northern lines in Washington, and that in 1906, the year later, he was talking of taking a trip East, but ye it up and solicited and received, o {wo occasions, transportation over the main lines, betweemt | St. Paul and Seattle, for his brother. i In 1908, which was the year of Judge Root's campai for election to another term, the correspondence shows that Judge Root solicited from Judge Gordon a campaign contribution of three hundred dollars, and there are free quent references to Judge Root's anxiety to meet Judge | Gordon in Seattle. For instance, May 18, 1908, he says in a postscript, “Hope to see you this week sure.” Of June 3, 1908, he telegraphed, “Have heard nothing sin in Seattle.” 4 Earlier in that year, on February 11th, Root wring to Gordon: “My Dear Judge: I expect to go to Seatti Thursday and if you are there during that time I should be glad to see you.” ‘ On April 24, wrote: “Dear Judge: please let me see you.” ‘ On April 27th, he writes again: “Will be at the Butler, Seattle, Friday this week, say from four to fours thirty, but if you find you cannot get in until a later hour, drop me a line there fixing a different hour.” : On April 30, 1908, Root is still anxious, for he writes “Dear Judge I will try to be at the Butler, in Seattle, on Friday, three p. m. If you are not there I will call again at three-thirty, and if I fail to find you, again at four fv Judge Root went upon the supreme bench in 1905 by appointment received from Governor Mead. In 1908 he was a candidate for election to succeed himself. During his campaign none of these matters had become public, and he was elected for a term of six years, commencing in January, 1909, During the close of his campaign, however, rumors had been curreul, reflecting upon Judge Root's integrity, and an investigat- ing committee had been appointed. Pe This investigating committee reported on January 7, 1909. In the second week of January Judge Root declined to quality for his new term and filed with the governor a written statement covering his resignation, in which he used the following language: “I always thought that for a justice of the supreme court there should exist not even an indiscretion, especially have I always thought that any reflection upon any member casts a cloud upon the entire court. In the light of the severe criticisms contained the report of the committee, I feel that for me to qualify would be to embarrass the court and litigants and attorneys before the court and create in the minds of the people a suspicion which would be highly undesirable to the administration of justice in the etate.” The letter of resignation referred to was given to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer following an Interview had with Judge Root by Erastus Brainerd, then e*itor of that newspaper. Judge Root’s statements, both to the Seattle Bar association and on Supreme Court letter head, When you are over on this side to the public in his advertisements, have hinted at betrayal of him on the part of Mr. Brainerd. In answer to this charge, Mr. Brainerd has submitted the fol- lowing letter “Milo A. Root, so I am informed, says I dragged him, a sick man, out of bed at 10 o'clock at night and forced him to resign. This misstatement is on a par with his other falsifications and sup- pressions of the truth, As he has dragged my name into his nasty scandal, all that I will say now is that he asked me what consideration would I give him for signing a letter of resignation My answer was that I did not and would not ask him to resign and would pay no consideration. I will add that at the time I had ample proof that he was an unfit and improper person to sit on the supreme court bench 1 could further add that the blasphemous and obscene epithets he has recently applied to me in private would disgust and offend every decent person who is supporting him, and no decent newspa- per could print them, I looked on him then as I do now. His plea is one of whining hypocrisy. (Signed) “ERASTUS BRAINERD.” The case against Judge Root is made up from the record and his own testimony. By his own admissions he was indiscreet, and the reason why he should not be elected judge of the superior court is furnished by Judge Root in his own letter of resignation, in which he said: “I always thought that for a justice of the supreme court there should exist not even an indiscretion.” To sum up the case again 8 from railroads which were constantly He rode on those passes and he solicited and received passes for the use of members of his family, He himself explains the expression in the letter toGordon: “Am embarrassed by promises made on assurances ‘received,” that that phrase had to do with a campaign contribution of three hundred dollars to come to him through Gordon from some contractors and business men of Spokane. He wrote an opinion on rehearing in the Harris case, furnished Gordon with a carbon copy of that opinion, which Gordon rewrote, submitted to his own superior and returned to Root, who thereupon handed it down as the opinion of the supreme court in that case. He wrote a letter of resignation in which he expressed the be- lief that there should not even be an indiscretion for a justice of the supreme court—a rule which should hold good for a Judge of the Superior Court. THIS IS THE BRIEF IN THE CASE OF THE PEOPLE vs. MILO A. ROOT i ; de by Judge Root, himself, against himself,and because of his ill-advised candidacy for the Superior Court it is placed before the hy ag c< sh ag Ri yy rete Bet a tg under the specious plea of “giving him another chance,” and an appeal to the maudlin sympathy of those who have never read the record, now seeks their votes. : : tee : ‘ F Do you, Mr. and Mrs. Voter, want to place upon the bench, and clothe with the sanctity of the judicial robes, a man, who once entrusted with your confidence, violated it; who broke faith with you? If you are injured by a corporation do you want your case against that corporation decided by its attorney, or do you want your case decided by a judge of unimpeachable integrity? It is your court. y , if you do not want Judge Root, then vote for Smith and Jurey. Don’t scatter. CONCENTRATE! A vote for any one but Smith and Jurey is a half a vote for Root. Protect the Court. It is YOUR last bulwark of LIBERTY. THE ANTI ROOT CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE