No other country, whose regulations I have any knowledge of, furnishes an example of a system so prodigal and extensive. In England, whose courts are the boast, and said to be the security of the rights of the nation, every man knows there are but twelve judges and three principal courts. These courts embrace, in their original or appellate jurisdiction, almost the whole circle of human concerns.
The King's Bench and Common Pleas, which consist of four judges each, entertain all the common law suits of 40s. and upwards, originating among nine millions of the most commercial people in the world. They moreover revise the proceedings of not only all the petty courts of record in the kingdom, even down to the courts of piepoudre, but also of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland; and these supreme courts, after centuries of experiment, are found to be fully competent to all the business of the kingdom.
I will now inquire into the power of Congress to put down these additional courts and judges.
First, as to the courts, Congress are empowered by the constitution "from time to time, to ordain and establish inferior courts." The act now under consideration, is a legislative construction of this clause in the constitution, that Congress may abolish as well as create these judicial officers; because it does expressly, in the twenty-seventh section of the act, abolish the then existing inferior courts, for the purpose of making way for the present. This construction, I contend, is correct; but it is equally pertinent to my object, whether it be or be not. If it be correct, then the present inferior courts may be abolished as constitutionally as the last; if it be not, then the law for abolishing the former courts, and, establishing the present, was unconstitutional, and consequently repealable.
But independent of this legislative construction, on which I do not found my opinion, nor mean to rely my argument, there is little doubt indeed, in my mind, as to the power of Congress on this law. The first section of the third article vests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. By this clause Congress may, from time to time, establish inferior courts; but it is clearly a discretionary power, and they may not establish them. The language of the constitution is very different when regulations are not left discretional. For example, "The trial," says the constitution, "of all crimes '(except in cases of impeachment) shall be by jury: representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned according to numbers. All revenue bills shall originate in the House of Representatives,'" &c. It would, therefore, in my opinion, be a perversion, not only of language, but of intellect, to say, that although Congress may, from time to time, establish inferior courts, yet, when established, that they shall not be abolished by a subsequent Congress possessing equal powers. It would be a paradox in legislation.
2d. As to the judges. The Judiciary Department is so constructed as to be sufficiently secured against the improper influence of either the Executive or Legislative Departments. The courts were organized and established by the Legislature, and the Executive creates the judges. Being thus organized, the constitution affords the proper checks to secure their honesty and independence in office. It declares they shall not be removed from office during good behavior; nor their salaries diminished during their continuance in office. From this it results, that a judge, after his appointment, is totally out of the power of the President, and his salary secured against legislative diminution, during his continuance in office. The first of these checks, which protects a judge in his office during good behavior, applies to the President only, who would otherwise have possessed the power of removing him, like all other officers, at pleasure; and the other check, forbidding a diminution of their salaries, applies to the Legislature only. They are two separate and distinct checks, furnished by the constitution against two distinct departments of the Government; and they are the only ones which are or ought to have been furnished on the subject.
But because the constitution declares that a judge shall hold his office during good behavior, can it be tortured to mean, that he shall hold his office after it is abolished? Can it mean, that his tenure should be limited by behaving well in an office which did not exist? Can it mean that an office may exist, although its duties are extinct? Can it mean, in short, that the shadow, to wit, the judge, can remain, when the substance, to wit, the office, is removed? It must have intended all these absurdities, or it must admit a construction which will avoid them.
The construction obviously is, that a judge should hold an existing office, so long as he did his duty in that office; and not that he should hold an office that did not exist, and perform duties not provided by law. Had the construction which I contend against been contemplated by those who framed the constitution, it would have been necessary to have declared, explicitly, that the judges should hold their offices and their salaries during good behavior.
Let me not be told, sir, that the salaries in the present case are inconsiderable, and ought not to be withheld; and that the doctrine is not a dangerous one. I answer, it is the principle I contend against; and if it is heterodox for one dollar, it is equally so for a million. But I contend the principle, if once admitted, may be extended to destructive lengths. Suppose it should hereafter happen, that those in power should combine to provide handsomely for their friends, could any way so plain, easy, and effectual, present itself, as by creating courts, and filling them with those friends? Might not sixty as well as sixteen, with salaries of twenty thousand, instead of two thousand dollars, be provided for in this way?
There is another difficulty under this construction still to encounter, and which also grows out of the constitution: By the constitution, a new State may be formed by the junction of two or more States, with their assent and that of Congress. If this doctrine, once a judge and always a judge, be correct, what would you do in such an event, with the district judges of the States who formed that junction? Both would be unnecessary, and you would have, in a single State, two judges of equal and concurrent jurisdiction; or one a real judge, with an office, and another a quasi judge, without an office. The States also forming such junction, would be equally embarrassed with their State judges; for the same construction would be equally applicable to them.