In general the system works smoothly. The alcaldes are often ignorant men, but even in the United States the country magistrates are not always founts of wisdom. The judges of first instance and district attorneys are almost without exception respected in the community, and the present judges of the supreme court and of the courts of appeals enjoy a good reputation. Not infrequently political considerations have given rise to poor appointments, such as occurred in Barahona some years ago when the judge-elect telegraphed an indignant protest to the capital to the effect that he was unacquainted even with the rudiments of the law. The administration had not taken the trouble to ascertain whether he was a lawyer, but knowing he sought a position, had given him the first one at hand. This was rather an oversight, as the law requires such appointees to be members of the bar. On another occasion the legal requisite was filled by first declaring the aspirant a lawyer and then designating him for the post. These cases are exceptions, however. The integrity of the judges is not often questioned, but the alcaldes do not enjoy so good a reputation.
At the present time there are also American provost courts which take cognizance of "offenses against the military government." This designation is broad enough to include anything the military authorities choose to include. Apart from a few cases of regrettable harshness these courts have done fairly well.
While the various constitutions have expressly declared the independence of the judicial power, the authority of the courts has heretofore been rather relative, and they have studiously avoided conflicts with the other branches of the government. There is no case on record where they have declared a law unconstitutional. The supreme court when driven into a corner in 1904 even declared that it had not the authority to make such a declaration. The constitution of 1908 modified the decision by expressly providing that the supreme court may decide as to the constitutionality of laws.
This decision of the supreme court made little impression in the country, due probably in part to the ease with which the various administrations have disregarded the constitution when it suited their convenience. The little value of the constitution between friends has constantly been demonstrated. Certain provisions have been systematically violated, even by the best of administrations. Principal among them is the provision that no one be arrested without a warrant setting forth the offense, unless caught _in flagranti_, and the provision that every person imprisoned be informed of the cause of his imprisonment and submitted to examination within forty-eight hours after arrest, and not be detained for a longer time than permitted by law. These provisions have been dead letters as far as political prisoners are concerned. When a person was suspected of being involved in a conspiracy against the government he was liable at any moment to be seized and conducted to prison, where he might be detained indefinitely, until the danger was over, or he was considered innocuous. The ancient fortress at the river mouth in Santo Domingo, known as La Torre del Homenaje, bears over its entrance the sign, "Political Prison," and rarely has it been without tenants, even when the country was at peace and the constitutional guarantees were supposed to be in force. On one occasion when I heard a Dominican lawyer lament that a friend of his had thus been incarcerated for several months without a hearing, I inquired why he did not apply to a court and invoke the constitutional provision. The reply was, "The judge who signed an order to set the prisoner free would probably join him in jail before many hours had passed."