If we want examples of a corrupt bench, we can refer to the city of New York, where certain judges have been impeached, and removed from office. Of partisan judges, we find them in Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, and many other states. Of ambitious judges, those who, while acting in their official capacity, enter into political contests, and use their judicial positions to secure other preferment, we need only to look over the history of any of the states, and to the highest court in the nation. Judges of the supreme court of the United States are found identified with political parties; entering the lists as candidates for higher distinction; and while they are holding high and responsible offices, to which they have been appointed for life, they are seen mixing with politicians as partizans, and seeking nominations. Judges whose judicial decisions have been controlled by public sentiment, can be found in Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Judges who have reversed their own decisions, can be found in any state in the Union, and we have recent examples in the supreme court of the United States. Such being the facts, it is not strange that railroads, and other great corporations, should, to a very considerable extent, influence the actions and decisions of courts. We feel warranted in saying, that the decisions of courts, more than everything else combined, have promoted the rapid strides made by railroad corporations toward a complete destruction of republican institutions. The pernicious practice of solving all doubtful points in favor of these corporations by the "judicial construction" of statutes, or what might be called "judicial legislation," has been of vastly more benefit to them than all the grants received from legislative bodies. Legislatures do not possess the power to grant to any individual, company, or corporation, exclusive rights or privileges, unless such power is conferred by the constitution. The rule formerly obtained, that in cases where the rights of the public and that of an individual or corporation came in conflict, an act of the legislature of doubtful authority would be construed in favor of the people. The reason for this rule of construction is obvious. The people are sovereign. All the powers not delegated to the government, or to some department of it, were retained by the people. Hence, when a question was presented involving a doubt of its constitutionality, and a decision in favor of the individual or corporation would deprive the people of any of their reserved rights, it was resolved in favor of the sovereign people. The act was held to be unconstitutional because the legislature could not exceed the scope of the authority conferred upon it. The constitution was a limitation upon legislation.