Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1870-04-27
tl5atohman s. journal.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 81. 1870.
TERus-s2oo per year, strictly In advance or t210
ifnot paid within three months.
The Supreme Court.

nv AFNlAhiA' NN"'
We have once or twice alluded 20 the pro-
posed amendment to the Constitution in re-
spcct to the Judges Of the Supreme Court,
by which the General Assembly is to be
stripped ofthc power Disappointing the judges,
and that power is to be given to the Gov.
ornor, with the approval Of the Senate; and
the appointment is to be for six years, instead
Of for one year. As the people are to pass
upon this question, with the other amend
ments, in few days. by the election Of dele
gates to the Constitutional Convention we
invite the attention Of our readers once more
to this particular subject,
The Supreme Court, though consisting Of a
very small number Of mon, ia still one Of the
three great departments Of the government
which lin the words of the Constitution are
to "b be separate and distinct, so that neither
exercise the powers belonging to the other "
That is, the Court is to be Independent Of the
Executive and Legislative branches. In the
last resort this Court determines what the
law is. and thus has within its jurisdiction the
personal rights and interests Of every citizen,
as well as the rights and interests Of all the
incorporated bodies Of the State Except
in very few cases, from the decisions Of this
Court there is no appeal and for any abuse
Of the powers Of the Court, the only rcme-
dies are to proceed against the judges per-
sonally, if corrupt by impeachment, or to
eject them from the bench by He clectjoa Of
other and better men.
The process Of Impeachment requires, first,
an Indictment by the House Of representa-
iiyes, and then a trial by the Seuate so no
trial can be had, unless it is at the regular
session Of the Legislature, or session spec
tally called, and in either event great expense
would be incurred. Practically, therefore,
the only remedy we have had for bad, or in
competent, or inefficient judges, has been in
tie annual election Of be judges By the
General assembly. This has, in fact, been
the only remedy the people have needed, since
there has never been an instance of impeach-
ment Remembering that our government
has existed almost century, (ninety.threc
years on the ID Of July noxt,) this is very
significant fact significant that we have gem
orally secured excellent and acceptable Judges
by our system Of annual elections, or of the
equally important fact that the State has
easily and quietly displaced incompetent or
unacceptable judges. Now it is proposed to
change all this very materially we are not
to have the power to purge the bench annu-
ally, if need be, but only once in six years.
Here is the first great objection to the pro-
posed amendment If an incompetent, or in
efficient, or even oyerbearing and tyrannical
man shall get on to the bcnch we are forced
to take him for six years instead Of one year.
The power Of impeachment will not reach
such case, so VIC must endure the affection
with what patience we may. And when we
60 farther and anticipate the elevation of an
absolutely corrupt man, who will crimnally
mal-administcr his high office, we shall have
no possible remedy but the slow and costly
and almost utterly impracticabc one of i'm
parchment. 1t certainly must be very bad
case to warrant the cost of session of the
General Assembly; and very clearly proven,
as well as bad case to secure the vote of two
thirds of the Senators for impeachment
against the arts of lawyers and the political
influence of friends Of the accused. Let us
not forget the recent demonstration of the
difficulties of impeachment in the case of
Andrew johnson.
Now contrast with this the present easy
and efficient remedy, by the annually recurring
election. Every judge stands upon his own
reputation and merits in the judgment Of a
tribunal which fairly represents all the people
Of the State. 1t has ever been a hard matter
to get an unlavorblo opinion from that body
as to any judge aud if occasionally changes
have been made that did not prove for the
best, the annual opportunity to correct the
error has generally been improved, and Justice
has been done. To this view is opposed the
supposed advantage Of securing at least n
term of six years to every good Judge But
is that fair claim? Is it just to assume
that the General Assembly will not re-elect
good judges Or more pertinent still, is it
not a fact that good judges have been kept
on the bench for at least six years, and not
unfrequently until they resigned the office or
declined re-electon2 Yes, that is the fact.
For the last fifty years, including both su.
preme and Circuit Courts in the seven wears
when We had both Courts, the acreage term
of the judges has been more than six years :;
while two judges Royce and Red6eld) served
twenty-four years; two Williams and Ben
nett nineteen years; one Poland seventeen
years and resigned two (John Piorpont and
BarretD fourteen years, and are still on the
bench and one (Collamer) twelve years, and
resigned. Conceding then all the advantage
that is claimed for permaneRcy in the tenure
OF the Judicial Office, we insist that we have
actually had more than the proposed six
years term under our system of annual cleo
tons, with the clear and great advantage of
being able to get rid of unacceptable judges
every year, if the interests of the State re.
qured it. In this practical view Of the mat
ter, we can see no good reason for changing
the Constitution but on the other hand, a
strong objection to it. We do not wish to
have unfortunate appointments fastened upon
the State for six years Mistakes in the ap.
pointing power should be corrected more
promptly.
There is still another objection to the pro.
posed change, which goes to the independence
Of The JUICES. We know, indeed, that it has