ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
441
INEQUALITIES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE By HON. WILLIAM H. TAFT THE chief reason why the state devotes is the Supreme Court of the United States. so much time and effort to the admin It is true that this unique feature did not istration of justice is to promote the cause save us from the greatest civil war of modern of peace and tranquillity in the community. times; but no one at all familiar with the Speaking theoretically and ideally, of course history of the country can deny that this our aim is to secure equal and exact justice; function of the Supreme Court of the United but practically the object sought is peace. States and a similar one within the sphere of their jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts The most recent instance of this was set of the states ultimately to decide upon the forth most succinctly and forcibly in the able limitations of legislative and executive power report of Governor Montague as to the have greatly contributed to the peace progress in the establishment of a permanent tribunal at The Hague to settle international and tranquillity of our community. This difficulties. While in theory this is to secure peculiar power of courts with us has carried exact justice between the nations, practically their usefulness for the peaceful settlement of controversies beyond anything attempted its purpose is to avoid war. In a republic like ours, under popular in other countries. Of course, the exercise control, with the dual form of government of this power must rest on the existence of between the states and the United States, a written constitution. Without it there politico-legal questions which might tend would be no guide for the courts except to bring on conflict between parties and indefinite traditions that could hardly be factions among the people were, first, the made the basis for judicial decision. The distribution of power under the federal power of the courts to declare invalid laws Constitution between the national govern of the legislature we know was not adopted ment and the state governments; second, the without very bitter opposition; but I think division between the executive, the legisla the controversy was settled now so long ago tive, and the judicial branches of the govern that we generally agree that it has much ment; and, third, the limitations upon contributed to the smooth working of our governmental action either through the Constitution and to the supremacy of law national government or the state govern and order in our community, and offers great ment, in respect to the rights of individuals. advantages over the methods of settling a Under our fundamental compact and its similar class of questions in other countries. While we may properly felicitate ourselves subsequent construction by the judicial branch there was introduced a new and on this widened function of our courts, most effective instrument for the promotion enabling us to avoid less peaceable methods of the peaceable settlement of these great of settling important politico-legal questions, governmental political controversies. The have we the right to say that our present decisions in the cases of Marbury v. Madison administration of justice generally insures and Cohen v. Virginia, which in their personal continued popular satisfaction with its aspect took on the phase of a fundamental results? I think not. It may be true that difference of opinion between two great down to the present time it has supplied a Virginians, established the principle in this means of settling controversies between country, which has never been departed individuals and of bringing to punishment from, that the ultimate arbiter in respect to those who offend against the criminal laws such great political and legal issues was and sufficient to prevent a general disturbance
