The Arkansas advocate., 1832-07-25

belief tllat tue honorable Delegate ls notso innocent of the ehargeas iife would have us believe. He tells usthat Judge Bates was Hot removed ftoHofiiee, tt!i;;st his time had expired, and that the Pre- sident had right to exercise his own discretion in selecting an individual to fiji the office. Now, sir, the rtgfhtt Of the President to make removals Is not questioned. But what has been the usual course of the Executive in relation 10 oti 1se appointments? Why, sir, the usual course of the Executive has been to rc-appoint, unless the Judge is incom- potent, or has been guilty of maj prae. |tices in office. he power of removal vested in tue President at intervals of four years, was conferred on him only tomcet extraordinary cases, and to pre- vent the trouble and expense of trial by impeackment. The President should ap- proach case of the kind with guarded clrcnmspection, and only exercise the power of removal where an impcaoh- ment would in all probability besastain- ed before the U. $. Senate. And fl the President does make removals of this kind for any other than impeachable of fences, he Is, in our humble opinion. guilty of q gross abuse of the power conferred upon iimby Congress. Tine conduct of Judge Bates, in office, hav- ing beenperfectly uncxceptionable, and the duties of his office having been dis charged in manner satisfactory to the Circuit over which he presided, we cannot but regard the appointment ol Judge Bibb, in his stead, as removal of Judge Bates. Suppose Judge Bates had heldhis office during good bchoviour, 'ls 1t probable that he would have been removed? Would his enemies have hazarded an impeachment before the U. $. Scnate? Such q supposition would Dc perfectly absurd and ridica. lous. Yet anact of Congress, at war with tho genius of the constitution, steps in and enables the President to gratify the eupidity and malevolence of his enemies, by the removal ofthe Judge from office.
 i t1e honorable ielteTNFitef saSs. thai Judge Bates has DO right to complain. for that he hjnaselfwas opposed fer Con gress, and did not complain. Now, sir, without acknowledging that the gentle man did not complain, il does seem 10 us that the cases arc not entirely analo- gous. The flthers of the federal con. stitution have been particularly careful in guarding the independence of the iu- dietary. Ii was forcscen that if one or more individuals were vested with pow CT tomake removals in the judiciary, at pleasure. or at short intervals, that, in q popular government, where elections are frequent, there would be great dan ger of Judges descending from thebcnch, and engaging in the political broils that so frequently agitate the hecountrY. Ina word, that Judges would become sub servient 10 political factions, orpolitical leaders, and knowing that insuch case the people would lose all respect and reverence for the bench, and the beael, itself lose those lofty conceptions of in- dependence so necessary 10 an impar- tlal administration of justice, they de- termined that the tenor of their office should be during gooddehopiour.* Bat, sir, in relationtop political appointments, a Congress, for instance. Itis in accordance with the genius of our insti- tutions, that they should be immediate ly dependent on the people, It is pre- sumed that the independent ycomanry of the country have intelligence enough to seiectanindividual from among them selves who will best represent their in- terest and wishes. But would it be se- riously contended, that the people are equally we'll qualified to elect a Judge of the Superior Court? The one is. from policy, made immediately depen- dent on the people: the other, forrea- sons before stated, removed as far as possible from them. The member of Congress, coming direct from the peo- pie, is presumed to speak their sentl- mcnts, and to obey their instructions. But the Judge, not being dependent on the ficklcness ofpolitical parties, is expected to pursue the even tenor of his course, dispensing justice alike to all, regardless of the political divisions of the country. Ina word, the one is the man ef the people, the other the man mode for the people.
 Respectfully, ELLINGTON. C. r. BERTRAND, Esq.
 
 *An act of Congress has made an excep- tion of Territorial Judges. Alas poor Territories,