New-York tribune., 1905-07-22
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGES.

Unsatisfactory were the Hooker proceed
ings with reference TO the immediate matter in
hand. they were by no means without large
usefulness, and even the "go and sin no more"
verdict is not without its helpful lesson. We
may regret the result and look with disquiet
at the prospect of continuing years upon the
bench for judge of such patent moral insensi-
biity Justice Hooker has displayed. But
whether he stays TO fill out his term under a
cloud sees fit to resign after demonstrating
his ability to stick. the fact will still remain
that a great moral lesson has been taught to
judges politicians and people
Justice Hooker is 4 type. Many other men
who have been plOdding on in a certain moral
blindness will see light. To some that light will
carry a conviction of sin and result in higher
ideals. To others 1t will merely carry a warn
ing Of public opinion and lead to greater cir
cumspection. But, at any rate, it viii raise
the standard to which officials and politicians
will feel themselves bound in letter. if not IN
spirit to conform. The plea of Mr.. Rogers that
the condemnation of such conduct as Justice
Hooker's should not consist in making q scape-
goat of eKemplar of IT in high place but
that we should have moral houseclean.ng from
the bottom up may be in measure granted.
Another great benefit Of the proceedings Is
the establishment beyond any dispute of the
right Of the legislature to remove judges for
merely immoral acts not done in the exercise
of official functions. The original idea of James
Kent and Rufus King. subsequently defended
by Charles O'Conor and Samuel ]. Tilden, is
vindcated, and the meaning and scope of the
constitution are finally settled From this time
there can be no doubt of the personal as well
as official responsibility of judges TO the people
and Of the existence of an effective instrument
to enforce that responsibility. At the same
time the verdict in the Hooker case disposes
Of all the wild fears about abuse of this in
strument. When ii is impossible to secure
two-thirds vote for removal in a case where the
attitude OF man after man who votes for
quittal is mot guilty. but don't do it again.
clearly there is no great danger of this power
being used arbitrarily or to impair the right
independence of judges. Like impeachment, it
can be effective for removal only in extreme
cases. Like impeachment. it is q reserve power
whose chief usefulness is not In its frequent
operation but in its reminder of judgment.
From that point of view the failure of the
proceedings is not an unmixed evil. The exist
ence of a complete system of machinery to
safeguard the courts. by impeachment for
crimes and official offences and by joint legis-
lative action for general unftness. Is estab-
lished. And at the same time the bench and
the people are assured that neither Of these
processes can be recklessly and lightly carried
out. No honest judge has anything to fear,
while the dishonest judge knows that however
reluctant the legislature may be to move yet
his moral conduct is. after ALL subject to re-
view and that, even If under such ci"cum
stances he succeeds in averting removal, his
standing may be irretrievably impaired