, 1873-05-14

Their province Is to decide Hhnt tho la", as
malo by tho LogiBlaturu, means, what 1t requires
OF permits, and wlat 1t prohibits. 10 require
candidate for n Judgcship to signify in adyanco
that ho will leokle TINT the law docs tolor-
ate, md requiro, or does not toler-
ato, md prohibits, certain acts, US
his constituents may from time to time
vote, is to destroy tho judicial character OF tho
courts, aud convert them into more registry OF
tho prevailing projudlces Of their noighbor-
hoods. No man fitted by education or having
any self-rospect would tnko u Judgcship upon
euoh terms, a1lfl tho ,nan making such plodgo
either confessos his unitnoas, il honest, for tho
olcc, or llia purpose to got elected and then re-
pudiato bis r;ledgos In either case it is dograt-
ing to tho Bench aud to tho State to elect him.
Thora ~ not farmer in Illinois, nor any other
parsc,n, who would go into tho trial Of case In
viii eli ho was q party, ii oyon ono Of tho Jurors
hid pledged himsolf beforehand to give verdict
flor tho other party; nor would the suitor sub
nit to havo hiR easo tried before Court which
tho case against him. To compel
auitor to have his case triod by Judge or by n
juror who had declared a purpose to decide
against him, would not be submitted to by any
portion Of tho community, and the Court TINT
would do such d thing would descrvo tho scor1l
Of every honest man, and would bo tho tit sib-
joot OF impeachment.
Yot this is precisely wllht the st. Louis Demo-
cral thinks should bo done by tho Supreme
Court Of Illinois. In tile case Of tho Chicago t.
Alton Tailway, tho Supreme Court hold that Tho
act Of the Legislature, which had been passed MS
an experiment Homo timo before, waa defective,
beca.so it did not permit tho defendant in suc'l
d case to offer any defonso, and 1t provided
'poaaltias 60 utterly diBproportioned to tho Of
fenso as to rondor tlsom unconstitutional In that
| opinion tho Court Indicated tic defects Of tho
law in such way that tho Iegialature SAW tit 10
repeal the former lnw md enact now ono III
accordance With tho Judgment OF the Court.
1This Is tho docision which It Is said must bo re
tiyersod by tho revolution Of tho Court. There
/ 3is not lawyer Of reputation in tie State who
does not couaidor that the opinion Of the su-
/ preme Court In that case right, yet 1t is de-
1nanded that no person shall be elected Judge OF
tho Supreme Court who will not agree before
hand to decide all caseB against tho railroad cor
porations, no mattor what tho law or tho ori-
dence may be and thai pledge to this action
shhll be given before the election. Tho St.
Louis Democrat says:
/ What Judges made elective for, Il they not
amenahlo in aono way to public opinion7 But, to
meet the question aquarey, believe 1t to bo the duty
Of the Judges, In popular form Of government, TO
regulate hsir judicial opinions graat public qtcs-
uons, BY tho wel1-sctued convictions and op4nona Of
| the people,
Judges wore made elective, in this first In
stance, thatth selection should BIO withdrawn
from party caucuaes, and that t1'o people might
triumph over caucus by e1octng an honest. in
dependent Judiciary. They wore not nado olcc'
tive that they might be chosen with reference tt
tl,oir opinions on county-aoat questions, no,
as to tho Judgment they should render i'
/ tho caeoH Of Brown against Black, o.
Smith against Jones. Az We have stated
tho courts do not mako laws. The]
are IN no sense 1ogla1ators They arc governed
by the Constitutions OF tho country md OF tht
f5tate, and by the law Of tho State. 1lloy dotor
mine what tho law Is ~ thoy find 1t, and apply Il
to tho cago before tllo1n. I'ub1io opinion mi
tho convictions Ut tho pooplo onn, IL dircctl,
applied, reYolutioIizo tho Legislature, clarigt
Constitutions, md mako tho law What tlloy wisl
it to ho. Whon t'luy hnvo dono tliH, 1t will bs
tho duty Of tho oourta to atl,niniutor tho law n,
1t IL ma&le for tl1oW. hut courts cannot amott
t Constitutions nor rovolut1onizo tue Fundamental
b law; IL thoy woro to do this, they woul.
i properly 10 treated as uaurpors II.
Q st.. Louis Democrat aays thnt tho Drc
d Scott cano ia woll~knoun instance Of tim novc
Q Of public opinion on The iudgmopt. OF court. ]
0 tho Drcd Scott caso tho Snprbmo Court decide
9 that tho paintif, being T. slave, was not quaitle
to bring an action in the courts Of tho Unite
states. That was tho whole decision oil IL
rost was mere political aud paltisan dictuu
d Even after tho War Ind swept4slavory out Of q:
:. tstenco, tho Repubican:C Congress and the nepu1
u lean Legislatures OF tho country thought
:. necessary, In order to noet the lociason in Il
r. Dred scost case (which, by the way, has ney
boon roYersedD, to amend tue Constitution by i
-, clarlng peraons who had been alaucy to bo eli
= zcns Of tho Uuitcd ststos. Tho aanao ps,
:. further says:
Is not altogether IN u,lheartt.of thing for courts
ToHove tho ancient Lap luarks Of tho law uud 10
adjust the ms Of private righs nnd public dutlea
g. meet Tho ehangea Which tako place III soclcy. Witt
TIC last thFee NOR .shs tu Supreme Court Of IiIu
turned tea baok rIon Ill ths prscsdonts aud took
departure in tb law Of husband aud wlfe by decari
tint huabAu could nut 10 ausd for tort OF the vi
The laws Of froe country must be flexible, aud
1,u.H r&n$Aa ta n&A