Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/641

 490

THE GREEN BAG

will be more surely and speedily attained? I do not suggest any hasty action, but I earnestly recommend that a committee be appointed to confer and report upon the question at our next meeting. Whether we pursue old or new methods, we will hold steadfastly to the ideals that have always been cherished. There have been war periods when the demand for service to the country by the individual lawyer, in his capacity of citizen, has been more acute, but never has the American Bar been confronted with a more serious patriotic duty. For a long time, next preceding recent years, judgments of courts, especially those of final resort, were received with the greatest respect. The passions aroused by cases of such political significance as the Chisholm and Dred Scott cases were temporary. They never disturbed the general confidence in the courts, nor provoked a general assault upon them. Throughout the land there was in the minds of the American people a profound regard for the judicial depart ment of government. If decisions were publicly criticised, the criticism was gen erally temperate, addressed to the partic ular questions, and was not of such character as to break down in the minds of the people respect for the judiciary. In various ways in recent times, and from sources too influential with public opinion to be ignored, the very foundations have been assailed upon which the stability of the courts rests. Judicial judgments are not accorded the same reception as formerly. Individual judges should be assailed if they are corrupt, or incompetent. It is no assault upon the institution to attack them for such causes in a proper way. The condition would become unwholesome and intolerable, and the system would decay of itself if this could not be done. While impeachment should not be lightly invoked, yet it is an indispensable safeguard. The impeachment of judges properly pursued would not undermine the confidence in the

institution, any more than would unfrocking a priest destroy reverence for the priest hood. The condition that now exists is general in its tendencies. Not a court, but the courts, are frequently and fiercely attacked. Political parties of all creeds have bowed their heads in recognition of a dis content which if not general, at least bears the appearance of potentiality. All of this tends to destroy confidence in the courts and to make a subservient judiciary. The people have been led away from the principle that the independence of the judiciary is one of the mainstays of civil liberty under self-government, which is based on mutual self-restraint, and the belief that it is no less important than the principle of representation itself. We might profit from the utterances of despotic governments. The Supreme, Court of the Kingdom of Prussia ordered to be framed a'nd hung up in its hall a letter from Frederick the Second enjoining its mem bers to be faithful to their oath, and to do justice in spite of royal demand. In 1499 Louis XII of France ordained that the law should always be followed by the high courts of justice in spite of royal orders which importunities may have wrung from the monarch. It does not lie alone within the province of monarchical government to overawe judges. The majority in a democracy has and may again, become despotic. "Why did you not tell Judge Marshall that the people of America demanded a conviction?" was the question put to Wirt after the Burr trial. "Tell him that! "was the reply. "I would as soon have gone to Herschel and told him that the people of America insisted that the moon had horns, as a reason why he should draw her with them." Perhaps the judges are not altogether free from blame. When in the decision of cases of great public importance, upon which the atten tion of the whole country is centered, they assail opposing opinions as subversive