Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 12.pdf/662

 The Courts and Politics. man of clear, well-defined and vigorous opin ions, and in issues involving high and funda mental political questions, he will not turn his back upon principles woven into the very warp and woof of his life. Under our form of government it is an important duty and function of the judge to educe and declare the sovereign will of the majority as embodied in our constitutions, state and national. The greatest victories of our parties have been won in the Supreme Court of the United States, as each in turn has been represented there, and has im pressed its views upon the decisions of that judicature. The selection of judges by popular elec tion, which prevails in a large majority of the States, is regarded by many as the most se rious menace to the integrity of the courts, and hence to the foundations of our social and political system. But our federal judi ciary, with its life-tenure, is far from show ing in its history that putting a judge in for life extinguishes in him partisan temper. To a fearless and conscientious judge a lifetenure may only increase the intensity of his political convictions by relieving him from the self-criticism that in retaining his politi cal views he is in some way promoting his political ambition. No! to give a judge a life-tenure does not lessen the effect of po litical prejudice on his convictions. Unlim ited power without responsibility, such as is conferred by life-tenure, with a certainty of no liability to impeachment by a busy Con gress, is too great a temptation for many judges to follow the bias of their political training. The Supreme Court of the United States has been successively possessed by three distinct phases of political opinion. During Chief Justice Marshall's long and honorable service the great majority of the judges were strong Federalists, and honestly believed that not only was the construction given by the Federalists to the constitution right, but that on the maintenance of that construc

621

tion the safety of the republic depended. The chief judicial points as to which the Federalists and Democrats in those days differed were, (i) the constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, (2) the constitu tionality of internal improvements, and (3) the right of the federal government to con trol State contracts, by virtue of the clause in the federal constitution prohibiting States from passing laws violating contracts. On each of these questions the Supreme Court of the United States ruled with the Federal ists. To say that the Court was right in thus charging the constitution with these high centralizing powers is a petitio principii. The two great parties were divided as to whether the constitution assigned to the federal government these immense powers. The Federalists maintained the affirmative of these issues; the Democrats the negative. The Supreme Court, composed mainly of Federalists, decided these questions in the affirmative — causa latet, vis est notissima. The death of Chief Justice Marshall, and the accession of Chief Justice Taney marked the change of the Supreme Court from its Federalist to its Democratic phase. Soon there were unquestioned signs that the new judges intended at least to go no further in strengthening the hands of the general gov ernment, at the expense of the several States. The Dartmouth College ruling was gradually modified; and then came the Dred Scott case, as to which, by a vote divided by sec tional, if not political, lines, was announced a conclusion, no doubt with entire honesty on the part of its authors, as well as those dissenting. As Chief Justice Taney's appointment may be taken as indicating the transition of the Court from Federalist to Democratic politi cal predilections, so the accession of Chief Justice Chase may be taken as indicating the beginning of the Republican era of the Court. On questions relating to the peculiar mission of the Republican party, the judges appointed by Mr. Lincoln, forming, after the secession