Union. The jurisdiction of the national judiciary it was declared should extend to all cases which respect the collection of the national revenue, and to impeachments of national officers; and then the comprehensive addition was made of "questions which involve the national peace and harmony." This latter provision placed the general objects, which it was declared ought to be embraced by the legislative power, within the cognizance of the judiciary. Those objects were not yet described in detail, the purpose being merely to settle and declare the principles on which the powers of both departments ought to be founded.

But, as we have already had occasion to see, the idea of vesting in the judicial department such control over the legislation of the separate States as might be surrendered by them to the national government, was not yet propounded. The principle which was to ascertain the extent of that control was already introduced and acted upon, namely, that it should embrace all laws of the States which might conflict with the Constitution, or the treaties made under the national authority. The plan at present was, as we have seen, to treat this as a legislative power, to be executed by the direct control of a negative. But a nearer view of the great inconveniences of such an arrangement, and the general basis of the jurisdiction already marked out for the national judiciary, led to the development of the particular feature which was required as a substitute for direct interference with the legislative pow

ers of the States. In truth, the important principle which proposed to extend the judicial authority to questions involving the national peace and harmony, embraced all the power that was required; and it only remained to be seen that the exercise of that power by the indirect effect of judicial action on the laws of the States after they had been passed, was far preferable to a direct interference with those laws while in the process of enactment.

The committee, with complete unanimity, determined that the judges of the supreme tribunal should hold their offices during good behavior.1 This tenure of office was taken from the English statutes, and from the constitutions of some of the States which had already adopted it. The commissions of the judges in England, until the year 1700, were prescribed by the crown; and although they were sometimes issued to be held during good behavior, they were generally issued during the pleasure of the crown, and it was always optional with the crown to adopt the one or the other tenure, as it saw fit. But in the statute passed in the thirteenth year of the reign of William III., which finally secured the ascendency of the Protestant religion in that country, and made other provisions for the rights and liberties of the subject, it was enacted that judges' commissions should be made during good behavior, and that their salaries should be ascertained and established; but it was made lawful

1 This was afterwards applied to the judges of the inferior courts also.

for the crown to remove them upon the address of both houses of Parliament. Still, however, it was always considered that the commissions of the judges expired on the death of the king; and for the purpose of preventing this, and in order to make the judges more effectually independent, a new statute, passed in the first year of the reign of George III., declared that the commissions of the judges should continue in force during their good behavior, notwithstanding the demise of the crown; and that such salaries as had been once granted to them should be paid in all future time, so long as their commissions should remain in force. The provision which made them removable by the crown on the address of both houses of Parliament was retained and re-enacted.2

In framing the Constitution of the United States, the objectionable feature of the English system was rejected, and its valuable provisions were retained. No one, at the stage of the proceedings which we are now examining, proposed to make the judges removable on the address of the legislature; and although at a much later period this provision was brought forward, it received the vote of a single State only. The first determination of the Convention, in committee of the whole, was, that the judges should hold their offices during good behavior; that they should receive punctually, at stated times, a fixed compensation for their services, in which no

1 Act 12 & 13 William III. ch. 2.

2 Act 1 Geo. III. ch. 23.

increase1 or diminution should be made so as to affect the persons actually in office at the time.

The appointment of the judges was by general consent, at this stage of the proceedings, vested in the Senate.

1 This was afterwards stricken out.

NOTE ON THE JUDICIAL TENURE.

THE English historians and juridical writers have not given a very satisfactory account of the purpose for which the power of removal on the address of the two Houses of Parliament was incorporated with the provision which gave the judges their commissions during good behavior. It is obvious that, if the power of removal is to be regarded as an unqualified power, to be exercised for any cause, or without the existence of any cause, the office is held during the pleasure of the legislative and executive branches of the government, and not during the official good conduct of the incumbent. In this view of it, therefore, the provision is inconsistent with the declared tenure of the commission. On the other hand, if the power of removal is not to be regarded as a limitation upon the tenure of the office, but the process of removal is to be considered as a mode in which the unfitness or incapacity of the incumbent is to be ascertained, treating it as a substitute for impeachment, to be used in cases of palpable official incapacity or unfitness, then it is not repug

nant to the tenure of good behavior. In support of this view of the subject it is to be observed that, in the statute of 1 Geo. III. c. 23, the tenure of good behavior is made the leading and primary object of the enactment. The motives for it are set forth with great point and emphasis. The King is made to declare from the throne to the two houses of Parliament that he looks upon the independency and uprightness of judges as essential to the impartial administration of justice, as one of the best securities to the rights and liberties of the subject, and as most conducive to the honor of the crown. The enacting part of the statute, which follows this recital, provides anew that the judges' commissions shall be and remain in force during their good behavior, notwithstanding a demise of

the crown; and the power of removal by the King, on the address of both houses, follows this enactment as a proviso. If, therefore, a not unusual rule of construction is applied, the power embraced in the proviso should be so construed as to make its operation consistent with, and not repugnant to, the great purpose of the statute, which was to establish the tenure of good behavior. In this view the rightful exercise of the power may be confined to cases where the individual is no longer within that tenure, or, in other words, where the good behavior has ceased, or become impossible. Upon this construction the power of removal can only be rightfully exercised when a cause exists which touches the official conduct or capacity of the incumbent.

In the Constitution of the State of Massachusetts, formed in 1780, the power of removal by the executive, on the address of both houses of the legislature, was adopted from the English statutes, and it was introduced as a proviso after the tenure of good behavior had been emphatically declared for all judicial officers, just as it stands in the act of 1 Geo. III.

An objection which has sometimes been urged against the construction above suggested is, that it is narrower than the terms of the provision, and that it would not include a case where a judge may have discharged all his official duties with propriety and ability, and may yet be personally obnoxious, as, for example, on account of gross immorality. But the answer to this objection is, that the question, whether a case of official good conduct accompanied by personal immorality, or the like defect of character, was intended to be within the power of removal, must be determined on a careful view of the whole provision. The meaning and scope of the qualification of "good behavior" must be first ascertained. If it means simply that the individual is to hold his commission so long as each official duty is discharged in the manner contemplated by law, then a mere personal immorality, which has not affected or influenced the discharge of official duty, is not inconsistent with the good behavior established as the tenure of the office. But if the good behavior means, not merely that the individual shall discharge his official duties in a competent manner, with an average amount of ability, and without corruption, but that he shall so order his life and conversation as not to expose himself to a cessation of the power to act intelligently and uprightly, then there may undoubtedly be a case of personal immorality that would touch the tenure of the office. Still it must be the tenure of the office that is touched, and it must be touched by misconduct or incapacity. The phrase "good behavior" is technical, and has always had a meaning attached to it which confines it to the discharge of official duty. It is, therefore, not what men think of the individual, or how they feel