The courts in Switzerland have no place in the political government of the country. The Federal Tribunal does not simply owe its existence to the Federal Assembly, but is constitutionally forbidden to pass upon the validity of the acts of its creator. It is not empowered to judge of violations of the constitution, or to keep the legislature within the limits of a delegated authority, by annulling whatever acts exceed it. According to the Swiss theory, the legislative department wields supreme power; is the sole judge of its own powers; and if, therefore, its enactments conflict with the constitution, they are nevertheless valid, and must operate _pro tanto_ as modifications or amendments of it. The legislature is deemed to have the right of taking its own view of the constitution. Its utterance is the guide for the court, which is always subordinate to it, and bound to enforce every law passed by it.[39] How different from the authoritative position of the courts in the United States, where there is no department of the government in which sound political views are more valuable than in the judiciary. No lawyer can be found with the requisite strength of mind and character to make a good judge on the Supreme Bench who is not a man of clear, well-defined, and vigorous political opinions. The interpretation of the more difficult legal problems calls for the application of those fundamental principles of government upon which the great parties are founded. In the history of the United States, parties have been broadly characterized by their attitude towards the constitution. Their greatest victories have been won in the decisions of the Supreme Court, as each in turn has been represented there, and has impressed its views upon the decisions of the judicature. Marshall, Taney, Chase, are the names which stand as the high-water marks of the juridic-political history. De Tocqueville, referring to the Supreme Court, says, “That the peaceful and legal introduction of the judge into the domain of politics is perhaps the most standing characteristic of a free people.” The Supreme Court of the United States is universally regarded as the most perfect instance of a court exercising the office of guardian and interpreter of the constitution. It must not be forgotten that, as such, it came into existence only under the second constitution; previous to 1787, it was a mere committee of appeals, the judges appointed directly by Congress, and dependent on it, or on its indirect action. To-day it is the pivot on which the constitutional arrangements of the country turn. It determines the limits to the authority, both of the government and of the legislature; its decision is without appeal; completely filling the idea held by some writers, that federalism implies the predominance of the judiciary in the constitution. It is a tribunal which can set aside a law of Congress, and enjoin the executive from proceeding, when it is satisfied that