must stand in the way of his complete independence of mind. Election, re-election, a power in the government to dismiss, are all of them incompatible with the function the judge is to perform. They will not, as a general rule, either give us the men we want, or enable us to keep them when we have found them. But we must, I think, go further than this. Judicial independence is not merely a matter of mechanical technique; it is also psychological in character. The judge whose promotion is dependent upon the will of the executive, even more, the judge who may look to a political career as a source of future distinction, neither of these is adequately protected in that independence of mind which is the pivot of his function. No less a person than Mr Chief Justice Taft has told us that he appointed a predecessor to that eminent position at least partly because he approved of one of his decisions.[5] No one could, I think, have confidence in the Bench if it were known that decisions pleasing to a given political party might lead either to promotion or to choice as either a presidential candidate or as Lord Chancellor. It seems to me, therefore, that we must so organize the method of judicial promotion as to prevent the executive from choosing men of its own outlook, and, further, see to it that appointment to the Bench is definitely taken as the end of a political career. These are problems of detailed technique into which I cannot now enter;[6] here I am only concerned to point out that the problem of independence which they raise is one that it is necessary to meet with frankness. But the judge’s authority as a safeguard of our freedom is in the modern state threatened in another way. Modern legislation is so huge both in volume and extent that the average assembly has neither time nor energy to scrutinize its details. The modern habit is, therefore, to pass Acts which confer a general power, and to leave the filling in of details to the discretion of the department concerned. To this, I think, no one can really take exception. The state must do its work; and it must develop the agencies necessary to that end. But I think we have grave reason for fear when the growth of this delegated legislative authority is accompanied with, or followed by, the conference of powers upon government departments themselves to determine the question of whether the powers they take are legal or no. I regard the growth of delegated legislation as both necessary and desirable; but if it is not gravely to impair our freedom, it should, I think, be developed only under the amplest safeguards.