The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1907-08-06
The Federal Courts
and Their Dignity.


Doubtless feeling called upon to an
nounce some pOrtentOus principle or
to elucidate with scintiIIant rhetoric
some great truth that the American
people had either never known or
had forgotten in the press of chasing
the elusive dollar, Attorney General
Bonaparte thus expressed himself on
the recent North Carolina imbroglio:
Such incidents have been declared
by the supreme court of the United
States and are regarded by the bench
and bar as extremely unfortunate,
tending to impair the dignity of the
judicial office, and to diminish pub
lie respect for the courts.
Mr.. Bonaparte is right in part. Mr..
Bonaparte is one of the eminent men
who are always right in part. At least,
since he was lifted out of private life
into cabinet eminenCe, he has been
at least partly wrong on almost eV-
cry topic that he has rushed into
the arena to discuss. And in just
that same way, he is now partly
right, for, Of a very truth, such Incl
dents do tend Ito impair the dignity
of the judicial office and to dimin-
ish public respect for the courts"
But Mr. Bonaparte should not
make the mistaAe of blaming the
people If a court so wrong, it is the
fault. of the court, not the people if
the dignity OF the judicial office be
impaired. and every time that fed
eral Judge butts in," 10 use very
technical expression that does not oc-
cur in the law books, the dignity of
the office is impaired.
Courts have no divine right, nor is
any judge greater than the public
theory and system of government
that he is supposed to serve. Judges
who firmly, rigidly, uncOmprOmisinS-
ly and impartially insist on the law
do not impair the dignity of the ju
diciat office. and do not cause the
public to feel a lessened respect for
the Judiciary. But just as the dere-
lict or renegade of any kind brings
disTepute on his family (however I'M
just it be) so does a judge who is
either deficient or malficient, wheth-
er Internationally or deliberately,
bring his court into public disrepute
and, to an extent, similarly impairs
the dignity, not only of his own class
or branch of the Judiciary, but of the
whole Judiciary.
One of the great American evils is
that not every man has the respect
he should have for the courts and
the law. To an extent, perhaps, this
Is due 10 individual confusing OF the
theory of personal liberty with the
desire for personal license. But one
thing is certain. and that is that the
court that can do most to control the
public is the one which most con-
sistently says To itself: Thus far,
and no further" for the court is
bound by law, as we'll as the individ- |
ual, and when it comes, for instance, |
to transferring a case from one jul |
risdiction or to another, the court to |
which it is transferred, especially if |
that is the court that is asked to |
order the transfer, ought to inquire, !
not only if it has the statutory pow |!
er, but if it has the ethical right |
when all the circumstances are con- |
sidered
The court that asserts the statu- |
tory right TO claim jurisdiction when |
the ethics of the situation are such it |
should not and the law does not make |
1t mandatory, is bound, whether just |
ly or not, to arouse public suspicion |
Of the purity of purpose of the court, !
and courts of concurrent Jurisdiction
ought TO be very cautious in assert
ing jurisdiction in cases already |
pending in other courts of competent |
II they be not cautious,
then human nature is such that their
dignity Will be impaired.
It is a principle of law. we believe.
so formulated or not, that /
'it is a poor rule that does not work
both ways" and courts must respect /,
the public, as we'll as expect the
public to respect the courts. We +