The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-01-12

BY maintaining false legal doctrines the judc-
cs may prove exceedingly dangerous rhey
are not less so, when thcv set as political
preachers Political preaching from the
bench, alone, is a reasonable cause for re-
moval of a judge. We have seen them la
boring AS tho Jealous Apostles of principles
deemed by majority of the nation hostile
to liberty. t4t'
The Judges Of the supreme federal court
lay down rules by which all the branches of
the government are to be bound. It is of the
utmost consequence that those rules should
be the dictates of wisdom. The wisdom of
the whole nation is more to be relied on than
that ofthrec men in the supreme court per-
haps superannuated, and whose patriotism
and integrity may be suspected. The nation
VIII never be in its dotage. In it there will
always be great numbers of men of sound un-
Outstanding, and uncorrupted principles. In
the supreme federal court, perhaps not one.
The nation will be under no undue bias: the
Judges may be actuated BY factious desire
to counteract the other branches of the 90
vernment..
1t is impossible in considering this question
to avoid rejecting on some past circuinstan-
ccs.v We are bound to avail ourselves Of the
light OF experience. Government was insti-
tuted tor the purpose of securing Justice.
ours Is imperfect if it does not answer that
purpose. Whatever be the institution if it
does not answer the purpose intended il
ought to be altered. If those who have gone
before us on the political theatre were missa
Ken, when thcv adopted the constitution, in
their expectation that it would "esta,lisb
justice, ensure domestic tranquility, and
preserve the blessings Of liberty to them
selves and their postcr;tv," it is cur duty to
rectify their errors. VIC have the same r;e-,it
to amend the constitution, that they had IN
maket: and We havecNpericnce Of its de-
fects, which they had not.
ne supreme Court have SO proc erded. "
niformlv, as to DEGRADE every branch Of the
government but their own. Srn after the
establishment OF that court, they decided that
the state governments were suahIe before
them' and endeavored 20 prove that there
was really no difference bctwcenthc govern
Inent of sovereign state, and that of n cor
porate town. The consequence of thatusur-
patton was an explanation Of the constitution
oty way OF amendment. The ration has seen
IN what way criminal prosecutions have been
managed, with view To prop the authority
OF one ADMINISTRATION, or to bring into con-
tempt that OF another.
IL Is better to prevent an injury than to
punish it. If. you have a servant that vo,
suspect means to poison Won, must Won keen
him until nc effects it? IF tho nation should
ever believe a Judge has iraitcrous designs
would 1t not be "foii'' and matlness'' to keen
him N office until he has an opportunity 70
destroy the nation' fou employ phvsici-
an lawyer, an oversecr; You dismiss him
Il, YOU suspect he is incapable, or unfaithful.
4 on do not call for proof of his cr;minal;t,,
Has he right TO complain that YOU have
Judged IN your own cause, and not given him
TAR trial IN court? It is Won only who
ought to Judge in your own affairs ifvou
oisfnisS hrn without reasonable cause ron
inJure vourself-Soif the nation ever should
cast on a Judge without a reasonable cause
the nation only would be injured. The Of
nee IS not created for the individual who
nils 1t, but for the nation. Their opinion Of
truth and justice would direct them how ~
act and they ought to be at liberty to follow
it.
There is much less danger that CONGRESS-
should usurp power than that the federal
courts shoaid. Because the court will con-
sist OF smaii number, and the power usulp-
Gu IS 70 continue Tor life. Congress will be
numerous body, the power of any one of
the number will be small, and to be eyecnfcd
ior short time only. They will have no
interest, or ambitious motive, to govern them.
Ihey Will consult only the interest of the
people, In which their own will be compris
ed.
a power to dismiss the judgesis necessary
TO be placed somewhere, even though they
nave committed no crime or misdelneanor
The ofinions OF a Judge NAV be reasona-
Ole cause OF removal. / contend that :. IN,
fS1fefy Of me fe2tle is :he. first kQzv." If
then the opinions Of Judge have tendency
10 destroy the state, his removal on account
OF those opinions is proper, and ought tobe
provided TOR. IT is not now provided for. A
Judge can only be removed for crimes OF mis-
demeanors. The judgment rendered by a
Judge can be no misdemeanor, if agreeable to
ms conscientious opinions. would have M
man punished for his opinions. But as they con-
stltute very sufficient reason for refusal of
once, so, IN some cases, they ought to be
su1hcIent ground of removal.
hope it is unnecessary for me to saw thu
90 not mean such differences of opinion as
exist between the different political parties
IN this Country. Twill put a case or two. that
l may be fully understood.
While there was a hretendcr TO the British
throne, would judge have been permitted
10 continue such, whose conscientious opinion
was that the pretender's claim was good. and
mat the acts of parliament to which he did
not assent, were unconstitutional, and void
ought such jndge, whatever his integrity
might be, to have been kept in Office under.
the existing government! Certainly not.
he oughtnot to have been punished for his
opinion, but he ought tohave been removed
from an office, his opinions disqualified
him to FILL
Ii. II =