Mr, Adams's idea of judicial power, as expressed in the
dissertation, accords with the principles of this essay. The
judges, says be, " should not be dependent on any man or
body of men ; they should lean to none, be subservient to
none." For this end, he proposes to give them commis-
sions during good behaviour, and to subject them to (he
judgement of one branch of the legislature, on the accusa-
tion of another.
We agree in the utility of judicial independence and impar- tiality. The independence meant by Mr. Adams, and by all other politicians, in speaking of judicial departments, never refers to a sovereign power, but to a man or body of men, clothed with some political function. The end of judicial independence, is to shield the judges against the influence of the creatures of the sovereignty, and the sovereignty against the evils of this influence, and not to supersede the sovereignty itself by one of its creatures. Not partiality to a nation, but to a faction or an individual, is the evil to be prevented by judicial independence.
As partiality to a nation, on the part of judges, is not the evil ; independence of the nation, is not the remedy. The evil, partiality, and the remedy, independence, both re- fer to delegated power, and not to national sovereignty ; and are converted, by transferring their allusion to wrong ob- jects, into a political caricature. Judges, independent of nations, lest they should be partial to delegated power : and subject to the appointment, patronage and removal of dele- gated power, lest they should betray nations!
Upon this ground, it has been urged, that judicial independence of a nation, will not shield judges against partiality for a man or body of men in power, or against becoming instruments of usurpation in the hands of governments; and that trial by impeachment, was not calculated to suppress the passions of men, to ensure an impartial judgement, or to allay in the minds cf judges every apprehension of a man or body of men.
