*1 Lyons Harvey ante, Pe- p. 918. v. No. 513. et al., for relief denied. rehearing tition for p. ante, Washington, 477, No. Goldstein v. 895; Machinery Inc., Misc. Acuff Co.,
No. v. Cook ante, 805; and p. ante, Mo- p. Misc. Cline v. 804. Dunbar, rehearing
tions for leave to file for denied. petitions 1111, Misc. U. S. Chandler, Judicial Tenth Circuit for Application of order. Thomas United States. petitioner. J. Kenan for Solicitor General for Marshall respondent. applied
Petitioner Circuit White, Justice for the Circuit, “Stay Order of Tenth Judi- cial Council of the Tenth Circuit of the United States” matter, the above and the application referred its Court for consideration and action.
It appearing to the response Court from the Solicitor application General to the sought relief is entirely interlocutory in char- acter prompt proceedings further inquiring into the administration Chandler of judicial busi- ness in the Western District of Oklahoma, and such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel, and that after such proceedings the Council will, as soon as possible, undertake decide what use, if any, should be such powers as it may have in the premises, it is hereby ordered that the application for stay be denied pending action of the Judicial prompt contemplated *2 concerning propriety no expresses opinion
The Court interlocutory action taken. Douglas Black, whom Mr. Justice joins, dissenting. Judge Stephen S. here States Chandler an stay
asks for a “Order” Judicial Council directing that until further order of the Tenth Circuit no whatsoever Council, Judge Chandler “take action proceeding pending” or in case or now hereafter court, assigned assigned his that cases now to be to assigned and that no new actions filed be him. If stayed to this order is not and if the Judicial way has it, Council some to enforce the order that means Judge completely performing Chandler is barred from any of his official duties and effect is removed ousted from office further orders of the Council. by given reason Council this drastic action is that it “finds presently that Chandler is unable, or unwilling, discharge efficiently the duties of his office . By . .” refusing stay . the Council’s order, the Court necessarily premise acts on the that the Coun- cil a legal has right to remove Chandler from office at least temporarily. Though the Court tries to soft- pedal stay its refusal the order by referring to “interlocutory in character,” the stark fact which cannot disguised be a that United States District Judge, duly
appointed by the approved by President Senate, is with this Court’s imprimatur locked out of his office pending “further proceedings” by the Judicial I think the Council is completely legal without authority to issue such order, either temporary or permanent, with or without a hearing, no purports statute authorize and that the Constitution forbids it. Nor
1005 asserting by the order be softened can the effect of rep- lawyer have a permitted will be Judge Chandler we Assuming that judges. his fellow him before resent governmental an stay order jurisdiction Council to do what this no at all agency that has instanter. this “Order” done, would “pursuant that its The Council states authority the Judicial to the vested 646, 332, 25, 1948, § c. Stat. June That section so far as reads: U. C. 332.” relevant necessary
“Each council shall make expeditious orders for the effective and administra- tion of the business of courts within its circuit. *3 judges The promptly district shall carry into effect orders of the council.” There language is no whatever this or which by any can interpretation reasonable be read as giving power the Council a pass upon the work of district judges, declare them inefficient and them strip of power their to act as judges. The language of Con- gress a purpose indicates to vest the Judicial Council with limited administrative powers; nothing in lan- this history guage, the behind indicates that a Council of Judges Circuit Court was to be vested power discipline judges, district and effect remove them clearly office. This is and simply proceeding by circuit judges to into inquire the of a fitness judge district hold his office and to remove him if they so I do desire. not Congress believe could, if even it wished, vest such in the circuit judges.
One of great advances made in the structure of government by our Constitution was its provision for an independent judiciary judges who could do their —for duty they as saw it without having to superior account sit- Senate except else anyone or to judges
court II, 4, of the Article impeachment. a court ting as States,” of the United that “Officers provides Constitution on from Office be removed “shall includes Bribery, of, Treason, for, and Conviction Impeachment I, and Art. Misdemeanors,” and high Crimes or other only be instituted can impeachment 2 and state that §§ Representatives House on recommendation hold that To only by the Senate. be held can that trial has tried to do what this Judicial can do judges my judgment violate here would Judge Chandler pos- far as preserve, Constitution plan our they people by guaranteeing liberty sible, of the Government or wholly independent judges agents exception with the any of its United States impeachment. Congress acting under its limited in its stop infancy, any growth We should before all, judges this idea that States district can be made efficiency accountable for their or lack of it to the judges just over them in the federal judicial system. only way to do that grant is to am in favor of granting it. *4 Trucking Misc. Green, dba Jim Green's Co. Public Utilities Commission of California. Motion for leave petition to file for writ of certiorari denied. Thomas Tobin for petitioner. Moran Mary Pajalich for respondent. In re Tucker. Motion for leave to
file petition for writ of mandamus denied.