sures as the faithful execution of the laws re-
quires; and such as will secure to the people their
rights of person, of property and of reputation.
These are the rights which society and govern-
ment are instituted to protect, and it is suicidal to
maintain for the people, or for the government, a
right to destroy or disturb them. Men, whose
moral feelings are depraved, require restraint,
because they will otherwise, intentionally com-
mit injuries, and others under the influence of
passion or prejudice may do the same. And
knowing this, the government—the power of the
people—should guard and protect those who
would otherwise be the victims of such persons.
The latter are a part of the people, and govern-
ment is as much designed for them, as for others;
indeed, more so. Each portion of the whole has
its respective and often divers interests—in other
words, its wants. The mercantile interest may
be greater or less than the agricultural, or those
who are laborers may be fewer in number than
those who are not; yet each has an undoubted
claim to the care and protection which his inter-
ests require. And so it is with all portions; but
it is emphatically the case with the feeble
and the destitute, who have smaller means in
every respect to protect themselves, and can look
no where but to the law and its administrators
for protection. Now, then, if all this be as I
have stated, it is manifest that your laws must be
free of access to all, equal to all, and certain for
all. To have them administered with a halting,
hesitating step—to let them bend one way for
this man, another for that, can but encourage,
and must sometimes sanction the doings of the
wicked or the passionate or prejudiced, while
it will necessarily alarm and discourage and often
ruin the victim. The consciousness of certain
defeat or punishment, will generally restrain men
from fraud or force; while a chance of success
or escape will operate as a premium to hazard
the experiment.
But can the judges be expected to do their du-
ty, when their very existence depends upon do-
ing; otherwise ? You will not allow a judge to
act, when his near relative has an interest in his
decision; hut to decide when his own rights of
person, property or reputation, are the subject of
controversy, would shock every man's sense of
propriety. Why is this ? The answer is obvious.
His partialities would bias his judgment, if his
integrity were proof against temptation, and the
reason is abundantly sufficient to justify the rule.
But does not the same reason apply, with all its
force, when his official existence, which may be
his means of subsistence, when even more than
this, when his reputation and fair character are
not (it is true) the subject of the controversy in
terms; but deeply involved as consequences re-
sulting from the particular manner in which he
may decide the case ? If the value of one dollar
of his property be at stake in the issue, he is dis-
qualified for assumed partiality; and yet when
consequences utterly ruinous to himself may
grow out of the decision, you are asked to disre-
gard their influence. Now, sir, my proposition
is that he be placed in a condition to exempt him
from these consequences—from all fear of them. |
Let him be defended against any such influence,
and against all other influences, but that of a high
and moral obligation, to do his duty faithfully
and firmly—yes, sir, in one word, make him "independent."
And the way to do this is to make
his tenure of office to depend, not on the frowns
and smiles of those upon whose rights he may
pass judgment, but upon his faithfulness and
firmness—upon his "good behaviour." This, sir,
is what the "rights of the people" require; this
is what all the people ought to desire; and, I
have no doubt, do desire. They ought to demand
it, because the wants of those for whom Courts
and Judges are provided demand it; because the
pledge and promise of protection and security
made them by the people, will otherwise be false
and delusive. If it were only to those, who are
suitors in your courts that these pledges of pro-
tection are broken, it would be unpardonable.
But to suppose that, is to commit a great error.
The man, who fulfilling, in all things, his obliga-
tions as a peaceable, quiet citizen, has had the
good fortune to escape a collision with his neigh-
bor; who has never had occasion to consult a
lawyer, or invoke the interposition of the Court;
who in all his life has never had a controversy—
he, too, has a deep interest in this matter. Sir,
it is the sure and certain administration of the
law; it is the known definition of his rights; the
moral certainty that they will be enforced by
the Courts; it is this, that has saved his rights of
property from aggression, his person from out-
rage, and his character from defamation. Let
the restraints of the law be withdrawn; and the
quiet and peaceful men will find others in the
community, who only need encouragement to
invade their rights. Yes, sir, a withdrawal of
restraint will make the latter offenders, if they
are not such already. It is then due to all, that
the law should be faithfully and fearlessly admin-
istered, and that, to this end, the Judge should be
"independent." To what else can men look for safe-
ty? In a despotic government, the will of the
monarch is enforced by the bayonet. That is a
very simple mode, most assuredly, of administer-
ing what is there deemed justice. But such jus-
tice does not exactly comport with our republi-
can notions; and we are not likely to have either
a despot to decide the law in the same breath
which creates it, or a military corps to enforce
his edicts. We are thrown entirely upon the
power of the law. There, and no where else,
must every man apply for a remedy. If my
neighbor attempt to take my property—if he
abuses my person—if he villifies my character—
I ascertain the law. It is fixed and settled. I
can demand the aid of the Court. It is open to
all. I claim the sentence of the Judge, in con-
formity with that fixed law, regardless of his
prejudices or his partialities—of the favor or af-
fection of my adversary, however influential.
Reverse the case, and what is the value of your
law? What avails your Court? It admits the
suitor within its halls, but it mocks his effort to
obtain redress. Is it amongst the "rights of the
people," thus to make a mockery of law and
justice? is this a right which it is desirable to
"restore" to them? |
