Show EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL POLICY THE philadelphia times eknes taking up the subject of the presidents judicial policy furnishes a complete reply to the philadelphia press in its endeavor to explain away the ugly features of the official correspondence which has occasioned so much comment the tunes says anyone who thinks that the harrison administration lacks a polley policy should read the correspondence between the A attorney general and the late chief justice of the supreme court of utah then follows a full account of the tilt between the judge and the at torney general and the times thus concludes the article theider the idea of an executive capol polley policy to which judges must conform their interpretation of the law is something entirely new we have had executive officers assuming judicial functions but it has not before been suggested that judicial officers must harmonize their views with those of the executive under penalty of removal judge sandford could only reply re I 1 that it had been his effort while afe on the bench to a administer din inister fustice and the laws honestly and impartially to all men under the obligations of his oath of office and that if the president has any t policy which he desires a judge of the le supreme court to carry out in reference to utah affairs other than the one I 1 have pursued you may say to him that he has done very well to remove me 21 it would be interesting to know how far the president expects to enforce his judicial policy upon the bench if he is to too construe the law in the territories why not throughout the federal jurisdiction suppose for instance that a judge in the united states court should oppose the administrations policy of revising a tariff by executive order would he be liable to removal and will the supreme court be expected to make its decisions in harmony with the policy which the president may deem proper to be pursued these are new ideas in constitutional government the chicago times also returns to the question and roasts the administration in lively style it explains the relative powers of the legislative judicial and executive branches of the government and their independence of each other and particularly the exemption of the judiciary from any control by the executive and it further denies the existence of any right of the president ent to ampol appoint nt j judges u adges with the design of using judicial power to further an an executive policy the times however falls into an error in stating that the territorial judges are subject to removal by the president they may be in practice because they submit to the treatment but they are not in law except for cause and that cause is susceptible of challenge and disproof the laws authorizing the removal of territorial officers by the president at at will do not extend that authority over the judiciary judges hold their office for four years and the words word sunless unless sooner removed by the Pr president eident which are attached to the description of the terms of other territorial officers are intentionally omitted in relation to the terms of the judges because it is the design of the law to rendo render them independent of executive con arol 0 the influence brought to bear against judge sandford was chiefly local those who exercised it misrepresented the judges judged course and now resort to downright lying in order to tb justify his official assassination that will not affect tle the principle involved in the alleged cause of his removal whatever falsehoods may be told about judge sandford the doctrine of an executive policy to control the judiciary is contrary to the whole spirit and theory of our national institutions and is to be repudiated by true republicans and democrats alike and it is that which has aroused the press of the country WHEN the reasons for the removal of judge jude sandford Band ford were under dig discussion cus sion we explained that the cp policy olley of the president referred to in the letter of the attorney general was political and in the interest of the republican party it seems that the now new york world the most widely read news newspaper in america takes similar ground the world thus comments on this peculiar pecullar action of the administration in this wise I 1 the removal of judge Sand tord chief justice of the supreme court of utah upon the ground as stated by attorney general miller that his administration of the offices acel is not in harmony with the policy which the president deemed proper to be pursued with reference to utah affairs has created much astonishment ish ment judge sandford abonce at once responded that his earnest purpose had bad been to administer justice and the laws impartially to all men under the obligations of my oath of office and he added the cutting observation that if the president of the united states has any policy which he desires the supreme court to carry out in in reference to utah affairs other than the one I 1 have pursued you may say that he has bag done very well to remove me it is naturally asked if the president has any different polley policy than this for a judge the reversal by judge woods the presidents near friend of his rulings ruling in the dudley case in order to prevent the indictment of that individual antt the same judged action in quashing indictments against illegal voters and corrupters corrupt ers of elections would seem to indicate that the presidents denVa M judicial polley policy is decidedly political 1 the philadelphia press attempts to explain away the mistake that has been made by the administration and says the policy which has caused so much talk is simply I 1 that the laws shall be enforced everywhere alike this is a great mistake judge sandford was administering the laws in that very spirit and no one can prove to the con arary if that was the policy of the president there would have been no need for any removal which b by the by was without color ur of lawf lawful authority nor call for a resignation the fact is a blunder has been made and the more the republican organs try to apologise apologize apol ogise for it and cover it up under a waste of words and a distortion of facts the clearer is it made that the executive authority has been exercised to control the judicial and this to if discordant with constitutional government in these united states fj |