The judiciary should police itself without Congressional interference, except in the case of impeachable misdemeanors, United States Court of Appeals Judge Harry T. Edwards told approximately 120 people in a speech at the Law School last night.

At the same time, Edwards said that the courts must find a way to discipline judges who commit offenses that do not warrant impeachment.

"Congress may get rid of a judge for an impeachable offense," said Edwards. "Since Congress is loath to impeach federal judges, this leaves a large category of judiciary misconduct that is safe from regulation."

His speech was part of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Bicentennial Lectures, a series of talks on the Constitution sponsored by the Law School and established at the bequest of Holmes in 1866.

According to Edwards, the problem with punishing misconduct arises from Constitutional ambiguity. "There are three categories of misconduct [which Congress may impeach judges for]," said Edwards.

"Criminal misbehavior, treasonous misbehavior and not good misbehavior. I reject the theory that impeachable behavior is the same as not good behavior. Congress and only Congress can impeach judges, but if Congress doesn't impeach, an alternative must exist."

Blatant case mismanagement, unabated abuse of litigants or public political endorsements would fall into this "not good" category, said Edwards.

Edwards' dissatisfaction with present Constitutional interpretation arose in part from 1980 Congressional legislation enabling litigants to file judiciary misdemeanor complaints.

"Most complaints came from litigants who had lost," said Edwards. "There were an increased number of frivolous complaints that increased the work of the chief judge and did not appear to help uncover judiciary misdemeanors. The [legislation] is a classic example of how Congress, while trying to remedy one set of problems, brings up another."

Edwards suggested that the courts could institute a variety of disciplinary measures against judges who engage in misconduct. These actions could include warnings, removal of the judge from the case, recommended impeachment or criminal investigations.

He said that since most judges were acutely aware of their public images, peer pressure would be a powerful deterrent to misconduct.

"Justice [William O.] Douglas has said that judges should not be allowed to ride herd on other judges. This is a powerful point," said Edwards, but he added that his suggested disciplinary methods for the judiciary would be less cruel than those Congress would employ under the same circumstances.

"If a judge can be made to answer outside judiciary activities, one wonders if there is really a separation of powers," said Edwards. "As a general proposal, judiciary self-control would be an incentive for good behavior."