Wendell Phillips, Theodore C. Pease, Speeches, Lectures and Letters of Wendell Phillips: Volume 1

[172] high crime he has only one. It so obstructs the course of proceeding, that it will never be used. He would suppose the case, not of mental disability, but the loss of public confidence. He knew that such cases were not to be anticipated. But he would look to times when the principle might be brought into operation, when the judge, by indulging strong party feelings, or from any other cause, should so far have lost the confidence of the community that his usefulness should be destroyed. He ought in such cases to be removed; but if witnesses were to be summoned to prove specific charges, it would be impossible to remove him. A man may do a vast deal of mischief, and yet evade the penalty of the law,--a judge may act in such a manner that an intelligent community may think their rights in danger, and yet commit no offence against any written or unwritten law. Men are more likely to act in such manner as to render themselves unworthy to be trusted, than so as to subject themselves to trial. The great argument for the amendment is, that it is necessary to secure the independence of the judiciary. He was in favor of the principle, but it had its limitations. While we secure the independence of the judges, we should remember that they are but men, and sometimes mere partisans.

The remonstrant here says, I have not touched a statute. Mr. Austin says, No matter whether you have or not; $ “a man may do a vast deal of mischief, and yet evade the penalty of the law.” Then he says he has heard a great deal of the weakness of the judiciary. He says the judiciary is not weak. Should you chance to see the remonstrant appear here, attended by eminent legal relatives and friends, you will remember this:--

“The court were besides attended by a splendid and powerful retinue,--the bar. They have great influence from their talents, learning, and esprit de corps, and as an appendage to the court, they give them a great and able support. He did not admit that the judiciary was a weak branch of the government, but, on the contrary, it was a strong branch.”

Then comes Judge Story. If anybody ever was, J