156
ments, jointly, and when appointed, as independent of the one as of the other. They cannot be removed without the consent of the states represented in the senate, and they can be removed without the consent of the president, and against his wishes. Such is the theory of the constitution. And it has been felt practically, in the rejection by the senate of persons nominated as judges, by a president of the same political party with a majority of the senators. Two instances of this kind occurred during the administration of Mr. Jefferson.
If it be alleged that they are exposed to the influence of the executive of the United States, by the expectation of offices in his gift, the answer is, that judges of state courts are equally exposed to the same influence—that all state officers, from the highest to the lowest, are in the same predicament; and that this circumstance does not, therefore, deprive them of the character of impartial and independent arbiters.
These observations receive confirmation from every recent decision of the
supreme court of the United States, in which certain laws of individual
states have been sustained, in cases where, to say the least, it was very
questionable whether they did not infringe the provisions of the constitution,
and where a disposition to construe those provisions broadly and extensively,
would have found very plausible grounds to indulge itself in annulling the
state laws referred to. See the cases of City of New York, vs. Miln, 11th
Peters, 103. Briscor vs. the Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, ib.
257. Charles River Bridge vs. Warren Bridge, ib. 420.—American Ed.]
PROCEDURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.
Natural Weakness of the judiciary Power in Confederations.—Legislators ought to strive as much as possible to bring private Individuals, and not States, before the federal Courts.—How the Americans have succeeded in this.—Direct Prosecution of private Individuals in the federal Courts.—Indirect Prosecution of the States which violate the Laws of the Union.—The Decrees of the Supreme Court enervate but do not destroy the provincial Laws.
I have shown what the privileges of the federal courts are, and it is no less important to point out the manner in which they are exercised. The irresistible authority of justice in countries in which the sovereignty is undivided, is derived from the fact that the tribunals of those countries represent the entire nation at issue with the individual against whom their decree is directed; and the idea of power is thus introduced to corroborate the idea of right. But this is not always the case in countries in which the sovereignty is
