Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-11-10
An Exy,eriment.

We believe there IL no State In tie
Union whose two houses Of the Lseisla-
ture are not by constitutional provision
made the sole Judge Of the elections,
qualifications. and returns. each house OF
It's own members. The Federal Constitu-
ton contains O like provision. In Eng
land, whence we in the United States have
brought to this country 30 much OF the
Law which governs rs, b separate court
now hears and decides contested election
cases coming to II from members OF the
House of Commons. The House OF Com.
mons itself formerly decided for itself all
such cases, but now receives and seats
members upon the certificates OF the court
referred to. This new departure empha-
sizes the fact that the people OF England
have bad no experience Of the sll-con-
trolling facts which caused their fore
fathers to claim for the House OF Commons
the right 10 pass upon the titles TO tneli
seats of its own members.
In New York on Tuesday last the follow.
ing amendment to the State Constitution
was submitted to the people for ratihca'
ton or rejection. We quote:
.The election. return, snd qualifications Of
anv member Of either house Of the Legislature
when disputed or contested, shall be determined
bv the courts IN such manner as the Legislature
shsli prescribe aud ouch determination, when
made. shall b conclusive upon tho Legisla-
ture."
We confess that we do not like this new
method of seating law-mskers. A body
o court of justice-is interposed between
the people end the peoples representa-
tiyes And then the judges of the courts
ought not TO be subjected TO anything
that would injure them in the estimation
of the public. 1t is important that courts
of Justice should have untarnished records
and judges above SUSPICION of partisan
ship. They cannot have such records nor
such Judges if they are brought into the
service of the country as makers OF the
Lawmakers. In 1877 in this country, in the
TnpEN-HAYrs election case, Congress went
to the Supreme Court of the United States
for members of the Electoral Commission
which was organized to hear and deter.
mine that case. What was the result I
The judges. like all the other members Of
the Electoral Commission, divided upon
party lines, and the fraudulent contestant
HAYES, was seated in the presidential chail
to which Mr.. TnpEs had been fairly elected
Perhaps we ought not to use the words
fraudulent contestant" in speaking Of
Mr.. HAYES. HIS title to the presidential
Office was good in law. The point we
make is that the judges OF the highest
court In the land were governed by the
same considerations which governed the
other members of the Electoral Commits
SION. In word. to use the language OF
New Yorker in discussing this question,
the Judges of the courts have not the
power TO preserve their usual judicia
temperament when considering cases
having political bearing. 1t has been
suggested that the English people have
separate court to decide their disputed
parliamentary election eases, but we dc
not see that this fact removes the objec
lions. The judges of this separate cour
cannot be further removed from the PEG
pie. nor more free to act. than are the Jus
tees of the Supreme Court OF the Unites
States, who showed in the case we hav'
mentioned as much partisanshlp as the
members OF the Electoral Commission
taken from the two houses of Congress.