Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1850-02-13
COMMUNICATIONS.

| Messfs Editors The subject of Convention
! to reform our State Constitution, is now occupying
the public mind and as the people will shortly b
called on to act upon that subject, it must be lhl
desire of every true patriot, that all The light may
be reflected, which can tend to guide TO correc
conclusion.
A number Of your patrons, not recognizing the
right Of the conductors Of public journal TO with
hold or conceal their opinions upon great public
questions Of deep importance, call upon you to de-
fine your position.
! You have indeed furnished your readers with two
meagre and obscure editorials upon one branch Of
contemplated reform. In your first. speaking Of an
elective Judiciary, you have. distinctly admitted
that the elective power righRully belongs to The
people, but you doubt deny the exPediency Of the
exercise of that power by them. Your position
seems TO be, that The people have ihe power, but il
would be unwise for them to exercise it.
You must concede that it is expedent for the
people teeect ;heirrepresena'ives in the State snd
National Legislatures, and the President of The U.
States. Ifihey competent to elect to the most
elevated, dignfied and responsible office in the
world, why are they not competent to elect Judge
in their own circuit, dr To elect Justice of their
County Court, when in relation to the qualifications
of both, in all probability, they have an intimate
and personal knowledge.
But this power should not be exercised by The
people, b,i. should be entrusted TO wiser heads
Who are they2 Upon what man or body Of men
would you confer this power? Would you let it
remain where it now is, to be exercised by the Leg
slature? Ifso, have only to refer you to the re-
cent election of successor to The late Judge Scott,
for striking illustration Of the manner that duty is
discharged BY that body, The successful ,candi-
date, who happened 10 be the presiding officer of
the Senate, was elected over competitor, who, it
is conceded on all hands, possessed vastly superior
qualifications, and who, if the election had been
submitted to the people of the circuit, would have
been chosen by triumphant majority. This, then,
can be regarded in no other light than palpable
abuse of the elective power entrusted to that body.
The people of the circuit, conscious of the just
injury they have sustained by the abuse of their
power, may, and doubtless will, complain, pro est
and demonstrate; but will that remedy the evil, and
give them the Judge of their choice No-A
Judge has been foisted upon them; he is safely in
stalled in Office, and, perhaps, any dissatisfaction
that may be manifested with his appointment, will
not the less incline him 10 exert the little brief au
thorty with which he is clothed. Who is respon-
sibe for this? The answer is, the representatives
from that circuit. But it SO happens, that the mis-
chief was not done by them, for all but one: were
found opposing the successful candidate. Where
then are the people Of the circuit TO look for redress?
1t would be idle in the extreme, for them to attempt
to hold the Representatives from Accomac, or from
Russell responsible for their action in The NATTER
Can il be wise then TO confer the apps hitting power
upon body who cannot be held responsible for the
proper exercise of that power, and who have no d.
rect or immediate interest in selecting the best quail
ifcations for The office.
1t is vital principle in our system, that all pub
lie funconaries should be held 10 strict RESPONSE
bilily. Without ample security for this, all that is
promised in the theory Of our government is lost and
exactly upon this point it is that danger threatens
US most Once snugly enscpnced in office. how
soon does the officer forget his responsibility In
stead Of remaining the servant of the people, he
snmes TO himself The rights of master.
Your position, that it is not exPedent for the peo-
pie to exercise the appointing power is, as under
stand il, a direct blow aimed at Repubcansm.-
The idea, it seems to me, is distinctly Swallowed
FORTH that there is or ought to be, power superior
10 that Of the people. ,,r..
In your second editorial, yauare understood TO ad-
nit that j. ia expeden. for the penple to exercise
the elective power, in appointing Justices of the
County Courts, but not in eIeciing Judges of the
higher Courts. Pray, sirs, if they are competent
TO elect Justices, why moi competent to elect Jndges2
Ought the one to be held to more rigid response
hlllty than the other? Is there any reason why
the tenure of Office should be different? Or will
you rest your distinction upon tile ground that the
Justices are altogether inferior men-less honest,
less vriuous less merlorops, and therefore less to
be trusted than The higher Judges?