Should State Supreme Court Justice be Ousted Because He Supports 18th Amendment? 1933

“Intolerance,” from the editorial page of the Journal-Patriot, North Wilkesboro, N.C., Thursday, Aug. 31, 1933, D.J. Carter and Julius C. Hubbard, publishers.

Prohibition is a personal matter, not in any sense a political one. If your neighbor favors repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, a few taken by not a few who are personally dry, and you favor retention of the amendment, there is no cause for bitterness between you.

In like measure, there is no reason to punish an able jurist for his views on prohibition as gossip has it that some individuals hope to do in the case of Justice Clarkson of the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Carl Goerch, a repealer, writes the brief for Judge Clarkson in the State, an opinion we believe the court of public sentiment will uphold:

“According to a little gossip that is going the rounds, there are certain individuals who are trying to devise ways and means of ousting Justice Clarkson from his position as a member of the Supreme Court bench. Rumor has it that these activities have been started because the Judge is an ardent dry and is vigorously opposed to repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.

“We believe we know North Carolina and its people fairly well. Our work takes us over a goodly portion of the state every week, and we can’t help but obtain a fairly accurate idea concerning the thoughts and sentiments of residents in various sections. We have heard some mention of this opposition to Judge Clarkson, and we are in a position to make a definite statement in connection therewith. Here it is:

“Those individuals who are trying to undermine Justice Clarkson bid fair to make themselves just as unpopular as it is possible for anyone to be in this state. The old gentleman has the respect and highest regard of practically every respectable citizen in North Carolina. His work on the Supreme Court bench has been above reproach. He is honest, fearless and conscientious. He is the kind of man who never shirks his duty, regardless of what the consequence may be.

“This paper is wet in its policies. Judge Clarkson is dry. We claim that we are entitled to our convictions on the issue of prohibition, and we cheerfully accord the Judge the same right. Or anyone else, for that matter. The fact that he disagrees with us on an issue of this kind is no reason why we should seek to oust him from a position which he has filled with such honor and distinction for such a long period of time.

“We do not believe that the move to fight Judge Clarkson is going to get very far. It doesn’t deserve to get very far. As a matter of fact, it is a decided discredit to those who are sponsoring it. We hope that they will realize this for themselves before they go too far with their efforts.”