Arizona republican., 1907-01-15
PHoENIX. ARIz,. JANUARY 15. 1907
THE OFFENDING JUDICIARY.

We notice a tendency to criticise the
 action of certain judges who have held
 to be unconstitutional. laws of recen'
 enactment under which persons have
 been indicted for federal offenses
 Some of these criticisms have been
 contemptuous. the offending juristS
 being described as two by four
 judges. Their legal ability has been in vidiously compared with that of legal
 giants in congress who enacted the legislation in question and with that oi the legal advisers of the executive de partment who had suggested or had favorably passed upon it. This criti- cism of the honesty and intelligence of federal judges is no new thing. The democrats and pOpulists have been lt it for years but it is new thing that the newspapers and other representa- tives of the administration should en- gage in it.
 The fashion appears to have been started by the president in expressing his dissatisfaction over the outcome of the Chicago immunity cases
 Concerning the errors of the judges who are under condemnation. We are not prepared to speak Indeed, it is be- coming to no one to criticise courts interpretation of a law. That is the business alone of some higher court and it is the business at last Of the highest court
 In the subject under consideration on a criminal charge. The law hay ing been held to be unconstitutional, that was the end of the matter so far as the defendants were concerned, for there could be no appeal.
 That may be a defect in our judicial system for which the judges are not to be blamed and it is not presumed that the existence of it influenced their judicial opinion of the laws be- fore them.
 The president in his late message to congress called especial attention to this defect and urged that the govern ment be given the right of appeal in criminal cases. That recommendation may or may not be acted upon, but in the meantime We must continue to re- gard the judiciary as We find it, tha bulwark of our rights and liberties. '
 We can not say that a law is consti- tutional because eminent lawyers of the legislative brauch of the govern ment participated in its enactment, or because other eminent lawyers of the executive branch of the government approved it. All laws are so passed and so approved or they would not be- come laws. Their constitutionality can be determined only in the judicia, branch of the government. Most of our laws are the results of compromise in the course of which the legislation is apt to become twisted out of parallel with the stern but safe lines of the constitution.
 The fact is that lately we seem to have required more laws for the reg ulation of our conduct than formerly. 1 We are no more criminal than we used | to be; the nation is no less orderly | than it was when we were governed | without noticeable friction and condi- | tions have after all been but little all | tered within the last fifteen years
 But with all the laws for the repress- ion and regulation of us, the executive department chafes at the limitations | which circumscribe it very loosely | and complains of it's want of freedom | of action. There is a growing insist ence that the judicial be not any long | CT regarded as coordinate. but as a branch of the government.
 This tendency has been observed by | outsiders and mention was made of It by so disinterested a witness as the London Standard, which commenting on the presidents late message, said: The most significant feature of the message is that the president is con- stantly finding himself up against the American constitution"