The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1895-01-31

JULIET co-orulhdte branches Oh the govern
ment."
= . q
Nowhere" said the court, sis this as
an essential principle of the constitution
better expressed than by Rogers, j., in the
commonwealth VS.. Mann, 5 w. and s. 403
Among other remarks of the learned Judge
are the following: "The independence of
the judges is equally requisite to guard
the constitution and rights of individuals
from the effect of those i'll humors which
the acts of designing men or the influences
OF particular conjunctures excite among
the people themselves, and which, although
they speedily give place to better informa-
ton and more deliberate reflection, have a
| tendency in the meantime to occasion dan
genous innovations in the government, and
severe oppression of the minor party in the
community"
The court further commenting said: "An
independent judiciary must ever I've n car
dinal principle of constitutional govern
ment. 1t was adopted in forming the fed
eral constitution, both in regard to the ex-
press tenure of the Office and in providing
hXed compensation, undiminishable DUR
ing the continuance of the office. And so
IN every state in the union this indepen-
dence is secured during the tenure of the
once by constitutional provisions, and
Judges are made secure from interference
from any quarter with the exercise of their
jurisdiction and powers, excepting in the
modes RSescribed in the several constitu-
tons. These provisions were not the re-
suit OF wise philosophy or far seeing
policy merely. They resulted, rather, from
severe trlalS-eXperience-in the country
from which we have largely derived our
laws and many of our principles of liberty
History has preserved numerous melan-
choly examples of the want of u judiciary
independent by law, before it was accom-
plished in England. The tyrannical reigns
OF Charles ii and James III are so full of
them that the revolution of 1858 could
scarcely have been other than q conse-
quence of them. A short time after the
revolution and by the English act of set
tlement it was declared that the salaries
of the judges should be ascertained and
established by law; and by statute Geo.
III they were secured absolutely during
the commissions of the judges, which are
Tor IRE, on the same condition os ours-of
good behavior"
A similar question came before he SUI
preme court of Tennessee in the case of
State VS.. Leonard (S6 Tennessee, 1857
The constitution of the state of Tennessee
provides that the judicial power of this
| state shall be vested in one supreme court
and such circuit, chancery and other
inferior courts as the legislature shall
| from time to time ordain and establish, in
| the judges thereof and in the justices of
the peace" THAT the judges of such
inferior courts shall be elected by the
qualified voters of the district or cir
cult to which they are to be assigned,
and that their terms of office shall be
| eight years.b The legislature created
the office of county judge of Marshall
county and Leonard was appointed and
qualified to fill the office. About two
years afterward the legislature passed
an act repeating so much of the act Gre
ating the office of county judge as applied
to Marshall county (the act creating the
office having applied to more than one
county, and undertook to re-establish the
office of chairman of the county court
and to devolye the powers and duties of
| the office of county judge upon the chair
man of the county court The supreme
court said:
"The question is, Can the legislature
subsequently and within the term de-
prive him of the Office by devolving its
powers and duties upon another?','
"The constitution, in fixing the terms
of the judges of inferior courts elected by
the people at eight years, intended not
only to make the judiciary independent,
and thereby secure to the people the cor
responding consequent advantages of
courts free from interference and control
and removed from all necessity of being
subservient to any power in the state,
but intended also to prevent constant
and frequent experimenting with court
systems, than which nothing could be
more injurious or veXatious to the pub
lic."
The court further remarked in the
course Of the opinion that being "con-,
scious of the improperly and hazard of
leaving the judicial department of the
government at the mercy and whim of
each recurring legislature, itself elect
ed but two years, the trainers of the con-
stitution wisely guarded against these
evils by the section referred to-"
"When q court whose judge is elected
by the people of one or more counties,
in district or circuit, is constituted by
the legislature, and an election held, and
the officer commissioned and qualified,
it is not in the power of the legislature
to take from him the powers and emolu-
ments of Office during the term of eight
years by devolving these intact upon an
other, or otherwise"
The supreme court of Illinois has also
passed upon this question. In the case
of the people eX rel. Ballou VS.. Du-
bois (23 H., 547) the supreme court of
that state said: "The question is, Can
the legislature cXpel circuit judge from
his Office by creating a new district and
taking from him the territory which con-
sttuted his district? The bare reading
of the constitution must convince every
one that il intended to prohibit snch n
proceeding. 1t was the intention of that
Instrument to place the judges entirely
above and beyond the legislative control
or interference except by impeachment
or address. as provided for in the twelfth
section of the fifth article"
The supreme court of Missouri passed
on similar question in the case Of the
state OK rel. Vail VS.. Draper go Mo-,
so. In deciding that case the court said:
II suppose it will not be seriously con-
tended that the legislature has the power
to expel circuit judge from his Office
by simple act of legislation. This of
fee is created by the constitution, and
as long as there is a circuit over which
the judge may preside he is entitled
to hold his office until the expiration
of his term if he behaves himself prop
erly. Whether the legislature by abol-
ishing his circuit can also abolish his
office is a question not necessarily pre-
scented by this record. The weight of au-
thority, however, seems to be that the
abolition or alteration of the circuit does
not. abolish the Office. The independence
NJ tho iudicia ru dama nda TINT thic should