OCR Text |
Show THE REMOVAL OF McKEAN. Judge McKean imprisoned Brig-bara Brig-bara Young for relusing to pay a fabulous sum in alimony to Ann Eliza, deeming Brigbam in contempt. Judge Lowe decided that Brigham1 was not in contempt. Judge Bore-man, Bore-man, an accident of this judicial district, coming here with all the prejudices pre-judices of McKean, without his legal abilities, sustains and enforces the Order of McKean, who was removed by the president immediately after his contempt order was pronounced. Upon the newa of foreman's order reaching Washington the attorney general convened a cabinet meeting for the consideration of the question, which was discussed and referred to that officer for an opinion. It may be asked how the executive department depart-ment uf the government can legally interfere in a pending judicial case. The president certainly cannot directly di-rectly interfere with the action of a judicial officer, but the power of removal of judicial officers has been and may be summarily sum-marily exercised at the pleasure of the administration, being an incident of executive responsibility. Whether the removal of Judge McKean could be considered an arbitrary exercise exer-cise of this power, depends upon the circumstances of the case. If his contempt order had been an appealable appeal-able one his sudden removal might have been regarded as an interference with the regular tribunals of justice; but it was an arbitrary order, affecting the liberty of a citizen, resting solely upon the discretion of a Mingle in dividual, as to terms and duration of imprisonment, which might be continued con-tinued for years or for life at his pleasure, without a chance for redress. No bail could be received, nor could the matter, which is considered con-sidered one of judicial courtesy, be heard before the judge of another district. dis-trict. If there had been any way of getting the alimony or contempt order rescinded on their merits, the removal of McKean could not have been justified as an executive act; but viewed as on arbitrary exercise of the power of a judicial officer in carrying carry-ing out aquestionable order, for thn results of which, had the order been forcibly resisted, the president would have been responsible, it is clear that the removal of McKean was the only alternative. This view of tho caso may have coinoided with the political I talus of the administration on the Utah question, involving the real or implied recognition of polygamy in Judge McKcan'B alimony order; hut it is a sufficient defouso of President Grant's course in ousting McKean to a&y that the contempt order was an arbitrary exeroise of judicial power, contrary lo public policy and the duo course of justice. That theo considerations occupied the attention of the administration when the removal of Judge McKean was determined upon seems ovident, since- the echo of his arguments mid tho enforcement Oi his order by Judgo Borernan have been deemed of aufli-cient aufli-cient importance to demand a special cabinet conimlUtion. If Judge Bore-man Bore-man is HiiMUined by tho administration administra-tion it is difficult to buo why Judge McKean should not be reinstated us .chief justice. |