Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1802-04-28

yeraI departments. The proylilon that
their compenlation fhall not be dimlnllh-
ed, is clear conititutional indication
that their independence was intended 20
be guarded againit the Legislature. Inc
exprsis declaration that they ihall hold
their Offices during good behavior, that IS,
upon condition dr3eudfnf on fbsmlslves,
IS repugnant TO the hypothesis that they
fhall hold al the mtye plsalureef0tbsrs,-
Provifions which proteis to confer rights
on individuals, are always entitled TO a
liberal interpretation in fupport OF the
rights, and ought not, without neceaity,.
to receive ansdnterPretation iubverilve OF
them. Provifons which reipeet the or
gan;zation Of CO. ordinate branch OF the
government, ought to be conRrued ~ iuch
manner, as 10 procure for it liability and
efficiency, rather than in fucha manner as
render it weak, precarious, and Deepen
denr. Theie various and Weighty reafons
fervc TO eaabIilh arong lines Of diicrlmi-
nation between judicial and other officers
and to prove that no inference can De
drawn from the power Of the Legislature as
TO the latter, which will be applicable to
tie former.
One more defenceofthis formidable claim
is attempted TO be drawn from the exam
pie of the judiciary eiatlIfhment OF Great
Britain. II is obfsryed that this efab-
lifhment, the theme Of copious eulogy on
account Of the independence of the Judges,
places thoie officers upon footing tsr lets
firm Than will be that Of the judges OF the
United States, even admitting the right
Of Copgleis to aboliih their Offices, by a.
boiiflling the courts O: which they are
members. And as ore proof OF the ai.sr-
stion it is mentioned, that the Ergiifh
Judges are removable hy the Kingon the
addrefs of the two kEoutes of Parliament.
Ali this might be very. true, and yet
prove nothing as TO what is or ought to
be she contribution Of our contribution On
this point. Il is PLAIN from the rroviiion
REJECTING compensation, that the trainers
Of that conliiittion intended to prop the
independence Of or judges l'ey3gd the
precautions which have been adopted il
England, in fefpett 10 The judges Of thar
country and the intention apparent in this
particular, is an argunen, that the fame
piril may have governed other Prosifons.
-Cogent reafcns have been afiared, ap-
plicable to our fyiteE, and nof applicable
10 the BritiAh fyeelD, for lecuring the IT,
dependence of our Judges againft the lsglf-
latiye, as well as asainit the executive
power.
Itisalledged TINT the aatute Of G. Bri-
tain Of the - of WiIlirm III. was The
model from which the trainers Of ouT con-
ititution copied the provifons for the in
dependence of our judiciary. Il is GER
tainly true, tina, the idea of tenure Of Of
fee daring good behavior, fourd in leye-
raj Of our contributors, is borrowed from
that fource. But it is evident thar che
trainers of our federald fem did not mean
to confine thernielves TO that mode.
Hence the ref}raint Of the Legislative diff
cretion, as to compensation; hence tie cInif-
ficn of the proyiGon for the removal Of The |
Judges by the executive, on the Applicant
on of the two branches of the legilature;
a provifon which has been initiated in
fome of the fate governments.
This very omiiiion affords no light in
ference that it was the intention to depart
from the principle of making the Judges
removable from office, by the cooperate
onor interpoftion OF the Legislative body.
Why ellie was this qualification Of the per-
manent tenure Of the Office, which forms
-confpicuous feature in the Britiih Ratute, /
and in fone of the fate contributions drop.
ped in the plan of the Federal Govern
ment
The infertion of in the Britih aatute
may alto be fuPpofsd to have been dietaf-
(, IL L.. L Il.