Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/655

 Rh

JUDICIAL COSTUME IN ENGLAND. BY J. FERGUSON WALKER. ABOUT fourteen years ago there was a keen controversy in America as to whether the judges ought to wear robes when performing their judicial functions. The dis cussion was caused by the New York State Bar Association, resolving that the robe was a suitable emblem of judicial office, and re questing the members of the New York Court of Appeals to adopt it. " Is it true that the judges are going to put on gowns?" said a lady to one of them at the time. " Yes," he said. " When? " asked the lady. " At night," was the reply. The judges, how ever, complied with the resolution, and thus followed the example of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States, who have always worn robes of office. The change was not so much an innovation as a return to former custom, for the American judges of our fathers' time wore robes as in signia of their lofty functions. If judicial costume be merely a relic of feudalism, and have no moral or practical value, there is nothing to be said in its fa vour. It has even been asserted that its only effects are to tickle the vanity of its wearers and to tempt them into an exagger ated conception and exercise of their powers over the people. But men of intellect and character, who have attained the judicial bench after years of laborious effort and business training, are not affected by such trivialities. Robes cannot diminish a judge's ability, learning and integrity, while they have a beneficial influence over the multitude under his jurisdiction by increasing respect for the executive of the law. The uniform of the soldier serves the same purpose, though in this case there is the further object of in creased efficiency, a special dress being nec essary not only for physical convenience in the operations of war, but in order to distin

guish the military from civilians, and one reg iment or one army from another. The reason why judicial robes inspire respect does not seem very difficult to de termine. It is analogous to the feeling of solemnity produced on entering a great ca thedral or on viewing any unwonted spectacle. Sudden change in external surroundings al ways produces this sentiment, provided there is nothing ludicrous in the transformation. The simplest divergence from the ordinary externals of life is a change of dress. What, then, can be simpler, more graceful and con venient, or more appropriate than the robe? Only in the idle and cynical will it raise a mere ripple of curiosity. The ermine of the bench has been for centuries the emblem of spotless justice and strictest integrity. Though wigs and gowns cannot inspire the people with confidence in a corrupt judge or with reliance on a weak one, they have made many a wise judge look wiser and many a dignified judge appear still more dignified. In an especial sense it befits the judge elected by popular vote to wear the judicial robe, which then represents the majesty of the people. That a political caucus may have assisted him to his position of eminence, is beside the question. Lord Salisbury once remarked that though he revered the crozier and mitre of an Archbishop, his reverence was changed to amusement, when he saw peering from behind them the familiar fea tures of a certain political wire-puller. But the judge upon the bench no longer plays a political part. His. robes do not merely ele vate the popular idea of a law court. They elevate the beholder himself by appealing to a certain nobleness in his nature, by gratify ing sentiment, and by exemplifying the dig nity of the law and of its authors. The judges of England have from time