St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1912-04-03

reaches the conclusion that when
the agent fails to satisfy his
principal he may rightly be recalled.
The fallacy in the argument is in the
assumption that the judge is an. ag-
ent. He is.not an agent of either
party to a cause. He is not
even the agent of both parties.
If his duty were to trade
and compromise between them
he might be considered the agent Of
both. But that is not his duty. His
duty is to decide. 1t is not for him
to please, nor seek to please, either
party. 1t is for him to decide the
question between them as law and
justice requires
If judicial opinions are to be re-
viewed at popular elections, why
should not judges be instructed be-
1 forehand how to decide questions
that are certain to arise? They
would be saved the possibility of
be done the greatest jurist will be
the one who shows himself most ex-
pert and nimble in keeping on the
side of the majority.
When the King asked Lord Coke
how he would decide certain ques-
ton if it came before him he replied:
when that case arises / will decide
| it as shall befit a Judge" History
| has recorded the answer with a
proud smile. When democracy asks
that question of her judges shall
they answer with less dignity and
self-respect than the chief justice Of
the Stuarts?
When Prince Hal struck the Lord
Chief Justice on the bench and went
to Jail for it, the King shed happy
tears that he had a judge who dared
administer the law even to the heir
apparent, and that he had a son who
in his sober second thought accepted
the judgment of the law.
Has free America in the goth CEN
fury less reverence for law than the
House Of Lancaster had 500 years
ago? In one respect the Roman tri-
Dunes performed for the Roman peo-
pie the Office that our judges do for
us-they had the power to veto
laws that struck at fundamental
rights. You remember that when
the plebs were advised to do away
with tribunes by those whose pur-
pose had been thwarted by them the
tribunes recalled the people to their
time they said, the wolves advised
the sheep to get rid of their watch
dogs, because they interfered with
the sheep going where they pleased
and were really the only obstacle to
perfect understanding between the
forest and the fold! When, after
wards, the people did give up their
tribunes they lost their liberty, and
they never regained it till they got
them back. Your watch dog may
annoy the sheep when they wish to
go astray-he may even nip one Of
them now and then, as he tries to
bring them back, but let the flock
think twice before they exchange the
watch dog for the wolf.
Our day has witnessed the first
widespread and determined effort to
secure the establishment of a per-
manent international court. The
worlds confidence in courts has be-
come so deeply rooted that we have
reason to hope that the end of war
is in sight. Is it not remarkable
that our day should have witnessed
also a serious and calculated effort
to abolish courts altogether? That
two such propositions should have
been the birth of the same time will
be one of the marvels of history.
The proposal to recall Judges for
unpopular decisions is nothing less
than a proposal to abolish courts.
To abolish courts is to abolish free
dom. However innocent the motives
of those who propose this measure,
no deadlier blow was ever aimed at
the heart of human liberty than
this. The people have only to I'M
derstand it to reject it. They are
not ready to throw away the fruits
of their long labors and unnumbered
battles, labors endured and. battles
waged for this very thing, that under
the broad shield of a sacred and in
violable justice the weakest or most
hated might rest secure in their lib
erty, their property, their lives.
They will discover the tyrant under
this f1attering disguise. And In the
end they will consign to obloquy the
names of those who would have
tempted them to their destruction.