New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-14
THE ARCHIBALD VERDICT.

There will he little surprise at the
conviction of Judge Archibald Oh five
If the thirteen charges brought against
him nv the House Of Representatives.
The testimony laid before the Senate
shaved that the defendant had no
proper conception of the limitations
mt on private business activities pY
the acceptance of judicial Office. Inc
transactions in which he entangled
himself as broker. or would-be
broker. in coal dumps violated all the
rroprieties and conventions which
should hedge about a judge. The raiI-
roads from which he tried TO make
profits were likely at any time to De
l.ticants in his court Even In the de
renee which he offered he evinceu no
propcr consciousness of the STANDARDS
Of conduct expected Of an upright or
even prudent judge one OF MS
counsel made the pitiful argument thar
since Congress by statute prohibited a
Judge from practising law while on
the bench that must he held To be the
only sort of business activity forbid
den to him. Mr.. Archhald'S brokerage
enterprises were beyond the pale. ana
ON the evidence the Senate could not
well avoid voting TO remove him from
the bench.
Naturally il also made short work
ar the theory that judge ought not
10 he impeached for offences for Which
he could not he indicted under state
or federal law. That theory is neon
sistcnt with established practice IN
American impeachment trials and has
M basis whatever i'm reason. There
would he little need for the impeach-
rent remedy if every cause on when
q nudge could be tried were also cog
,izable nv an ordinary court I'M
oeacbmcnt has uniformly been held 10
offer a means Of reaching Judges delin-
ouent I'm their duties or forgetful OF
+bo;r official obligations. They hold
Office during good behavior and may De
called To account for breaches OF NOR
ais or trust which may not he indict-
able in the law courts. Judge Arch-
laId's defenders clutched NJ straWs
when they put forward the plea that
,hoir client could not he disciplined for
acts which proved his unfitncss TO con
tinue in Office though they may not
have put him into the category OF
actual lawbrcakers.
Tho Scnato's verdict is. i'm fact.
vindication of the process OF impeach-
ment as a means of reaching Judges
vho do not show q proper respect Tor
their obligations. The process Is some
what complicated and tedious and mas
boen resortcd to iufrequently on that
account But the Archibald case shows
that il is still Of practical everyday
value II is far iuster and safer
method than popular recall could ever
lao and less disturbing to those ira
ditions of security and independence
which arc the bulwark Of an efficient
Judiciary.
II has often been said Of late that
tho machinery Of impeachment was
rcadv for the scrapheap. just as II
VAS said that no amendment could he
made 20 the federal Constitution eX-
cent under the stress of war. But the
constitution is being amended easily
and TRANQUILITY. and the Archibald trial
proves how effective an Instrument
the impeachment process is. 1t is be-
coming evident that popular impa-
,ionco with many existing institutions
has been due not to defects in their
operation but TO inexpertnesS ana las
>;tudc i'm using them.