Not infrequently in the judicial history of the United States
there has been presented to a judge the choice between rendering
a decision according to his opinion of the law and the facts and
losing his seat, and rendering one according to public opinion,
or the public opinion of his party friends, and keeping it.

A judge of the High Court of Errors and Appeals in Mississippi
was one of the earlier martyrs in the cause of judicial
independence. The State had incurred a heavy bonded debt, which
she found it inconvenient to pay. The Governor, who had approved
the bills under which over $15,000,000 of the bonds had been
issued, concluded in 1841, after the issue, that it was forbidden
by the Constitution of the State, and issued a proclamation
declaring them void. In a suit in chancery this question came up
for decision in 1852. Meanwhile the policy of "Repudiation" had
been made a political issue and the people had given it their
approval by electing its advocates year after year to the highest
offices. The chancellor upheld the validity of the bonds, and on
appeal his decision was unanimously affirmed.[Footnote: State
_v._ Johnson, 25 Mississippi Reports, 625; Memoir of
Sergeant S. Prentiss, II, 268.] A few months later the term of
office of one of the judges who had concurred in this opinion
expired, and the people put a successor in his place who held
doctrines better suited to the public sentiment of the hour.

In the days preceding the Civil War, the validity of the laws
enacted by Congress to secure the recapture of slaves who had
fled to the free States was frequently attacked in the press and
on the platform. The Constitution expressly provided for such