24 zsnnainu. rmronrnn.
didates for office, and freely discuss measures that relate to the indus-
trial and material interests of the country. A commissioner violates the
law if he sits in judgment in any casein which he has a personal interest,
and he acts with impropriety when he hears a matter in which one of the
parties is his near kinsman. As a judicial oflicer, he should be strictly
impartial, avoid all appearances of acting under improper inlluences,
and be free from all temptations to wrong, so that his acts may be above
suspicion, and thus deserve and maintain public confidence and re-
spect. .
As a security for the independence and impartiality of judicial officers,
"* there is a general rule, of great antiquity in the common law, and now
fully recognized and observed in every enlightened system of jurispru-
dence, that renders judges0f courts of general and superior jurisdiction
exempt from,liability to civilactions and indictment for their judicial
_ V acts and affords the same immunity to judicial ollicers of limited and
inferior authority, when they act within the scope of their jurisdiction,
with integrity and without malice or corruption. Randall v. Brigham,
7 Wall. 523; Bradley v. Frhher, 13 .Wall. 335. .
Commissioners of the circuit court are officers appointed by the court,
and authorized by law to exercise important judicial and ministerial
functions in aid of the circuit and district courts in the administration
ofjustice. They areappointed by the circuit court, but their powers
are expressly conferred wpon them by law, and they arenot strictly officers of
such courts, and subject to their supervisory control. Spear, Fed. J ud.
377, and cases cited. In this district, rules of- court have been form-.
ulated and adopted for the guidance and assistance of commissioners in
the performance of their difficult and important duties, but do not inter-
fere with the exercise of their judicial discretion in hearing cases before
them, The criminal jurisdictionof commissioners is denned by statute,
but there is no full, accurate, and distinctive mode of procedure pointed
out by which such authority— shall be exercised. They are required to-
act in conformity with the "usual mode of process" prevailing in the
state in which they are appointed. This provision of the statute has
given rise to diversity of practice in the several states, and this want of
. uniformity has caused some apparent coniiict in judicial decisions. In
the cases of U S. v. Ebbs, ,10 Fed. Rep. 369, and U.S. v. Harden, Id.
802, I had occasion to express my. views as to the powers, duties, and
modes of procedure of commissioners, as affected by the laws of this state,
and the subject needs no further consideration in this case.
I Now that Iyhave expressed, in general terms, my views upon some
questions of law involved in thiscase, I will refer more particularly to
the charges and specifications as I have formulated them, in substance, V
from the aflidavits on which this rule was granted: (1) "AiEant further
swears thattbesaid Geo. G. Eaves has been a notoriously violent and
bitter partisan during the late campaign in this state, habitually becom-
ing intoxicated, and, on one or two occasions, acted so violently as to ats _
tempt toengage in and produce a personal coniiict with weapons, with
his opponents, by himself and his supporters ;’l (2) that the respondent,