Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1908-06-25
SANCTI7Y OF
The JUDICIARY
some PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECT.
ions ON OFFICIAL HUMANITY.
The Disposition to Reverence the OF.
flee without Regard to the Char.
aCter of the Occupant is q Mistake.
Lincoln Criticised the Supreme
Court.

There is disposition, perfectly
human we suppose, to bow down and
worship offices regardless of the oc-
cupants. The presidency, for instance,
must be respected even though this
may necessitate respect for a presi-
dent who is as man contemplate.
1t is to the judiciary, however, that
fetishistic respect for mere office is
most devoutly paid. The bench and
the gown can do no wrong, though
the men within the gown and upon
the bench be the veriest rascals, and
though they use their judicial au-
thority UNANIMOUSLY. That is the idea.
1t was so even with Tweeds judges.
The cub lawyers of that day were
admonished to respect Judge Barnard
and Judge Cardozo, although the
whole pack of responsibilities got af-
ter them with most vigorous epithets
when they has become ex-Judge Bar
nard and ex-Judge Cardozo; and got
after them, too, for the very things
which they were notoriously doing
before lex" was prefiXed to their IL
ties, and while they were to be "re-
spected out of regard for their Judi
cial functions" It's all nonsense
paganistic nonsense, dangerous nom
sense. A bench and a gown are Just
as good as the man who occupies the
one and wears the other, and not one
whit better; just as worthy of re-
spect, and not any more so. We
must respect judicial commands until
regularly reversed, of course, for this
is in the interest of good order. But
the right to "go out under the horse
shed and swear at the judge" is in
alienable and wholesome. To take
it away is to give a sacrosanctity to
officials, in the guise of respect for
their offices, which cannot but intox-
icate them with sense of immunity
from criticism and tend to turn them
just such tendency has set in.
Lincoln criticised the supreme
court for it's slavery decisions, and
the slave oligarchs were offended;
and when Altgeld and Bryan critics.
ed it for it's plutocratic decisions, they
were crucified mataphorically as bias
phemers. And now we have a delec-
table group of plutocrats with their
expert lawyers and educators de-
manding of the republican conven-
tion that it affirm confidence in the
integrity and justice of the courts,
state and national" and ''insist that
the preservation of their independ-
ence and full Constitutional preroga-
tives is essential to the maintenance
of the American system of govern
ment." Behold the paganistic alb
surdity of this demand. What does
it really mean to affirm confidence in
the integrity and justice of courts in
that wholesale way? 1t means moth
ing whatever in any practical sense,
unless it means confidence in the in
tegrity and justice of all individual
judges. And is it true that all our
judges, state and national, are men
of integrity and Justice? No one be-
lieves it unless he is fool. A bench
to sit upon and silk gown to wrap
about him, cannot work the miracle
of turning lifelong adviser and de-
fender of corporate corruption into a
man of integrity and justice. AS
to ''the independence and full con-
stitutional prerogatives" of judges,
by all means let them be preserved.
But how can the constitutional pre-
negatives of these officials be disturb
ed without constitutional amend
ment? And what objection is there
to regulating them within the con-
stitution? Any disturbance of judi
cial powers within the constitution
is not question to be adjudicated in
court, but a political question to be
discussed by the people; and so of any
disturbance by amendment of the
constitution. Then what is meant by
this appeal for the sacrosanctity of
the bench and the gown? Is the in
dependence of judges assailed if the
people talk about limiting their func-
tions by lawful methods, whether
by constitutional amendment or leg
islation within the constitution as it
exists? Then indeed is it true that