Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/201

 The

Green

Bag

Published Monthly at $4.00 per Annum. Single Numbers 50 Cents. Communications in regard to the contents of the Magazine should be addressed to the Editor, S. R. Wrightington, 31 State Street, Boston, Mass. The Editor will be glad to receive contributions of articles of moderate length upon subjects of interest to the profession; also anything in the way of legal antiquities or curiosities, facetim, and anecdotes. THE EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIARY. The attention of the profession should be called to the bill introduced by Representative DeArmond, which we are informed would auth orize the President to remove judges of the lower Federal courts, when in his judgment the public welfare requires it. As we have not seen the full text of this bill we hesitate to criticise its purpose, but if the above is a correct interpretation it should call forth speedy dis approval from the profession. However much we may regret the cumbersomeness of the pro cess of impeachment it seems a greater danger to place the judiciary completely in control of the executive. We must consider, not merely the possibilities under present political conditions but those which may well arise in other generations. Even the lowest Federal courts are positions of dignity and importance, and should hardly be treated in a way that might be proper for a country trial justice. This is but another phase of the impatience at disagreeable decisions of the judiciary which is fashionable in other centers than Wash ington. In contrast may be commended the tactful deprecation of desire to overstep the constitutional separation of powers in the address of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts before a committee of the Legislature, in advocacy of much needed changes in the methods of selecting our jurors. THE THAW TRIAL. As we go to press the world is watching a New York jury facing the problem of the unwritten law, concerning which Judge Kernan wrote so impressively in our October number. There is little of technical interest in the Thaw trial, though the attorney of other jurisdictions will wonder why it was that so much unusual testimony slipped by the district attorney. Those of our readers interested in the question

of " emotional insanity" should read an article in an earlier number of the magazine by Frank B. Livingston (V. vii, p. 368) entitled " Moral Insanity as a Defence to Crimes," where the decisions are collected. The issues of fact in the case, however, are presented in a some what unusual form, and it must be admitted with unusual skill by the defense, and the questions of relevancy of testimony doubtless will prove precedents. The real importance of the case, however, lies less in its legal than in its social interest. The fact that so many will be inclined to credit acquittal to the influence of enormous wealth will add another stone to the structure of discontent. Though the manner of presentation of evidence of insanity will make it difficult to determine the extent of the influence upon the New York jury of the covert plea of justification, nevertheless an acquittal unfortunately will accentuate popular misunderstanding on this important subject. JUDICIAL DISCRETION. The utterances of Mr. Justice Gaynor of New York are always striking, and in his brief contri bution to the January Bench and Bar (V. viii, p. 15), entitled " How to Stop Perjury in Our Courts," he calls to our attention matters of great importance. While commending the move ment to make solicitation of personal injury suits a penal offense, he insists that the chief responsi bility for perjury in these cases is due to the fail ure of trial judges to avail themselves of their right to commit perjurers on the spot. The reluctance of judges to take a firm stand in this matter and indeed their tendency not to avail themselves of their undoubted right to discuss the evidence of witnesses in their charge to the jury he says is due to the " proneness of appellate judges in recent years to meddle with and adversely criticise trial judges in matters entrusted to the discretion of the latter