Harvard men have long been prominent in the defense of Sacco and Vanzetti--not, probably, because the University is a hot bed of socialism, not because the men concerned have sought to create names for themselves by sensational tactics, but because to most enlightened people it appeared that justice in Massachusetts was in grave danger of miscarrying. The courts, they thought, had perhaps been honest, had adhered to every rule and precedent, had obeyed the letter of the law to the end of the alphabet. But the very safeguards of the individual in this case, it seemed, had rendered justice in the broad sense impossible. Turning from the impotent courts, the advocates of Massachusetts justice--that part of them who thought it in danger--appealed to the executive branch to save the judiciary from itself.

Such a step is entirely in accordance with the constitution, despite the protests of some members of the judiciary who have asserted that no interference with the courts should be allowed. Only the courts, they said, were competent, and legally untrained minds would subvert justice to sentimentality.

But too close an interest in legal lumber may blind the judiciary to the merits of the individual trees of the forest. The English Cabinet System, disclaiming the principle of checks and balances upon which the Sacco-Vanzetti defense is appealing to the Governor, nevertheless guards against too close a perspective by mingling expert under-secretaries with non-expert politician in administering its public business.

Governor Fuller deserves praise for his latest decision in the review of the Sacco-Vanzetti case, both because he has seen fit to seek unofficial advice and because of the excellence of his choice. The three men chosen are eminently "respectable"--with no tinge of radicalism, no public favor to seek, and no political axe to grind. One of them is himself a member of the judiciary; another has been a member of the bar; all are men of many interests, without the fatal taint of narrowmindedness. Their appointment should reassure all but those who want the "dignity" of the court maintained at any price.