A Century of Federal Judicature. A CENTURY OF FEDERAL JUDICATURE. I. BY VAN VECHTEN VEEDER. CREATED by an authority superior to leg islation, and placed beyond the reach of executive power; entrusted not only with final authority in the administration of public justice, but charged with the limitation of the powers of political governments—the Su preme Court of the. United States is without a parallel in history. Whether regard he had, therefore, to the character of the suitors that are brought before it, or to the importance of the subjects over which it has final juris diction, it may well be considered the highest court in Christendom. Duly lawyers can understand what its members accomplished in making it a dignified and influential court of law; but every citizen should learn what he owes to them for making it the living voice of the Constitution. Established by the fundamental law as one of the coordinate departments of the national government, it remained for Chief Justice Marshall and his successors to vindicate its right not only to preserve the balance 'between the complex powers of state and nation, 'but to pass upon the validity of the acts of its co-equal legisla tive and executive departments. To the jus tices of the court is due the transformation of the Constitution from a scroll of parch ment into a living force; they found it paper, and they made it power. And thus it has happened that the fundamental rights of the people in life, liberty and the pursuit of hap piness find their final security in that branch of the government which is furthest of all be yond the public reach. But although the court is made, as far as any institution can be, invulnerable to public attack, publie confidence is the very breath of its life. It is the feeblest branch of the government. Con gress is strong in its possession of purse and sword, in its power of law making, its popu
lar character and opportunity of immediate communication with the people. The execu tive is strong from its position of command, its concentrated power and rapid action, and above all in its power of appointment and removal. The judicial department is inher ently weak. Numerically small, and without patronage to dispense, its justices elderly men, necessarily withdrawn from participa tion in public affairs, and accustomed to meet criticism in the performance of their often unpopular duty with the silence enjoined by usage and decorum, it finds its only refuge and support in the confidence and respect of the people. Thus, while it is the 'bulwark of the people against their own ill-advised ac tion, it finds its ultimate security in the con fidence of those whose passions it restrains. The character and conduct of its justices is therefore of vital interest and importance to every citizen who appreciates his heritage of liberty controlled by law. A brief reference to the conditions which pevailed during the first decade of the court's history will indicate the uncertainty which characterized its early years. The original bench was composed of lawyers of the high est standing and of wide experience in public affairs. But doubt and uncertainty as to its true position in the government characterized the early years of the court, and its dignity suffered in consequence. Appointments to the bench were often declined, and resigna tions were frequent. Harrison declined a commission, preferring to be chancellor of Maryland; Rutledge resigned to become chief justice of South Carolina. Statesmen bivouacked in the chief justiceship, as Shirley says, on their way from one position to an other. Nor did the judges look upon polit ical service as being incompatible with judi
