The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1877-05-30
THE LATE JUDGES OF THE SUPREME
COURT.

to the population practised upon the
public treasury by the late judges
Of the Supreme Court and sug-
eested to the Attorney General the
propriety OF at least requiring
them to refund the money thus pur-
Joined. We trust that his failure to
act Ia the matter is caused only by the
pressure OF other business, and not by
any indisposition to discharge his duty
toward men who certainly have less
claim than most others to the mercy OF
| the ministers OF justice.
We have since had stated to as the
defense which they make for their con-
duct, and IL liz this: Mr.. Roselius, when
consulted in regard to the propriety OF
drawing this additional sum, declared
that the constitutional provision was to
be construed as preventing q diminu-
ton, but not an increase OF the salary;
and several other distinguished men,
bers Of the bar concurred In this opin-
ion. Then there were presidents to be
found in the action OF Congress- in re-
gard to the Federal judiciary and of the
Legislature Of New York toward the
judges Of Its Supreme Court. Chief JUS
tice Martin attempted at one time to
have similar law passed, but the Legis-
lature refused. Finally one Of these
Judges drew 1t on the assurance of Judge
Taliaferro, who had been q member OF
the convention of 1868, that such was
the construction put by that body upon
article seventy-hve.
The rules Of legal Interpretation are
merely the terse expression Of logical
principles. With the abolition OF the
subtleties and fictions by which the
courts have sought to adjust the feudal
system to the requirements Of modern
society, those wire-drawn reanements.
which repealed the unprofessional mind,
have disappeared and given place to
such as are fully within the comprehen-
sion of any educated man. This is
particularly the case with those by
which our constitutions, the product OF
scarcely q century, are to be construed.
We are to accept unreservedly the
meaning conveyed to any ordinary
apprehension by the language used.
Only where that language is ambigu-
GUS are we authorized to seek the solu-
ton of the doubt In analogous provisions
Of the instrument or In the facts and
circumstances Of Its history. Never Is
it permissible to resort to scholastic
fancies, and still less to those arbitrary
dicta which PROSTATE the law at the feet
OF the judge.
What then is the provision OF the con-
stitution now under discussion Article
75 provides that; "The Chief Justice
shall receive salary of $500, and each
Associate Justice a salary Of $1,000 an
nually, payable quarterly on their own
warrants" No authority Is given to the
Legislature over the subject. We are
now told that the learned DR.. Roselius
and several other sages OF the law. have
expressed the opinion that the sums
here named are to be understood al
n,inim1a, and do not prevent an in crease
OF the salaries. Tous voyes par u
Puttlitc DIES Interpretations" But thu
day when name could give currenc!
to absurdlty has passed, and even tn
groundlings demand some better foun
dalton for their belief. What word o
letter OF that provision indicates tina
, the sums named are nainina which doe
!, not equally attach to them the charac
ter OF martina II the Legislator
could not diminish these salaries
: whence does 1t derive the power to in
crease them? But we have already dc
:. monstrated that the exercise OF such
= power involves the assumption OF al
!, thority to change the constitution
: which. from It's nature, the Legislator
a cannot possess.
= It hardly seems necessary to refer I
= it, but article eighty-fo1r strengthen
Il this construction. It provides that tn
= salaries Of the district judges shall b
a fixed by the Legislature, but shall M
~ be increased or diminished during the
term Of office and shall never be LEI
= than $4,000. Here minimum is esta
- lished. and 1t is done In plain and I'm
- ouivocal language, and the circur
stances under which the change mt
: be effected are explicitly defined. Eli
4 the trainers OF the constitution intend'
~ a similar construction Of article sevent
of Eve, would they not have expressed
so in equally plain terms? Is 1t not Gle
na that they intended just what their la
to guage expresses-to fix absolutely t.
% salaries Of the judges Of the Supren
l. Court and to deprive the Legislature
no all power over the subject We dou
an whether even No. 8 Of the electol
- commission would hazard the remna
m OF reputation left him upon negat1
ba answer.
~ A slight acquaintance with the JUL
~ prudence of the State would he
ho taught these judges that he to whom tt
"a committed their consciences was but
=, unsafe keeper Of his own. (See 15 A