of the independence of the Judiciary, in utter disregard of the lessons of the past and the wisdom of our fathers, should be considered, therefore, along with this object lesson furnished by ancient history and by penetrating into the records of the past centuries, it will be seen that to adopt such a law would mean to return to the “Leges Barbarorum” of the past. In the discharge of their impartial functions, the judges of the people’s courts, have nothing to do with popular standards; it is with right and wrong, according to the just and equal standards of the law that they have to deal and it is as true to-day, as when the patriarch Moses, admonished the judges of ancient Israel, that, in the prerogative of the judgment-seat, “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many, to wrest judgment.”[1] The work of the judges is in private places; they have no favors to bestow, no rewards of office to distribute. It is frequently the business of the charlatan to misconstrue and misinterpret their ablest judgments and as the courts are the final repositories of the people’s rights, when the public clamor is the loudest for the sacrifice of individual right, then the true judicial character performs its highest office, in withstanding all assaults by the ill-informed, upon the ramparts of the Temple of Justice. With the wide-spread demand for the “judicial recall” we find the true modern standard, in this regard, reflected in the recent strong language of an upright Texas Judge, who, in the course of his opinion, observed: “I have made it the rule of my judicial life, and shall continue to do so, while invested with the authority pertaining to the office I hold, to decide questions as I understand them, after as careful an investigation as my capacity affords, without reference to what public opinion may be. I do and shall continue to regard the law as superior to the ebullition of outraged feeling, when communities are shocked by crime. When cases arising under such circumstances, have reached this court, my voice and my vote shall, in the future, as in the past, be given for the upholding of the law, not bending it to public sentiment. The stability of the institutions of this government depends upon adherence to the law, as it is written, and not on the fluctuating strenuousity of eruptive ebullitions of popular sentiment.”[2]