28 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 
the formation of the states, the appointment of the state judiciary rested 
with the governors or the legislatures, or both conjointly, and only one 
state, Georgia, made them elective. It was the state of New York. among 
the older states, that really led the way to the election of all judicial 
officers, from the highest to the lowest, throughout the union. At the 
present time, out of the forty-four states, thirty elect the judges by a 
popular vote. The federal judiciary has always held a far higher position 
in the estimation of the intelligence of the country than the elective judi- 
cry of the states, since its mode of appointment, permanency of tenure 
and larger scope of duties have given it a positive strength and dignity 
that the latter, under its inherent conditions of weakness, cannot possibly 
possess. - 
It is but just, however, to add that flagrant cases of corruption or 
impropriety are remarkably rare among the state judiciary despite its 
election by political and popular influences ; the most shameful instances 
having occurred in the city of New York, where the party machine, 
under the Tammany control, has always exercised a baneful influence on 
public morals. The evils of the elective system would have undoubtedly 
been far greater had not the good sense of the people eventually recog- 
nized the necessity of giving a longer tenure of office to the judges, and 
re-electing them when they have discharged their duties with fidelity. 
At present the terms of office average ten- years throughout the union, a 
number of the states having extended them to fifteen, fourteen and 
twelve years. Swift retribution has generally followed such flagrant 
examples of corruption as those of Barnard, Cardozo and McCunn in 
New York, under the Tweed régime ; and when Judge Maynard, of the 
Albany court of appeal, whose conduct in reference to election returns 
had been most discreditable, presented himself in 1893 fora renewal of 
his term, he was met by a popular majority against him, and was literally. 
to use an Americanism, “snowed under.” Although the evils of an 
elective judiciary are not so apparent on the surface, it is admitted by 
American thinkers and publicists. who are not politicians, but can speak 
their honest opinion, that the system has been most unfavourable to the 
selection of men of the best ability, and to the exhibition of courage and 
fidelity in the discharge of their important functions. Judicial decisions 
have been wanting in consistency, and too constantly fluctuating and 
feeble. Men of inferior reputation have been able, by means of political 
intrigue and most unprofessional conduct, to obtain seats on the bench. 
Confidence in the impartiality of judges is sensibly lessened when it is the 
party machine that elects, and professional character and learning count 
for comparatively little. If the interpretation of the constitution had 
depended exclusively on this state judiciary, the results would have 
been probably most unfavourable to the stability of the union itself, but 
happily for its best interests the men who framed the fundamental law 
