Tazewell Republican. [volume] (Tazewell, Va.) 1892-1919, 1911-03-23
A PARTISAN JUDICIARY.

"SS OCCh III sympathy Win the anti
organization of the Virgini,
Democrats. And our Norfolk contem
oorary has also been friendly to tn,
candidacy of Hon VIM. A. Jones fol-
the United States Senate, but it doe.
not approve of the utterances of Mr.
Jones fsvoring the election of judges
Dur Norfolk contemporary says:
Because the new Democratic
League favors the candidacy of
Messrs. Jones and Glass, it does
not necessarily follow that those
gentlemen approve in their entirety
the policies of reform advocated
by the League in its published man
ifesto. Mr.. Jones, however, has
anticipated enquiry as to one of
those policies by announcing him
self in favor of the election by popu-
lar vote of members of the Corpor-
alton Commission. In the same in
terview he is reported as adding
that he was ALSO inclined to sup
port a Constitutional amendment
which would give the people the
right to elect the judiciary" Just
why Mr.. Jones should have thought
it advisable to inject this domestic
issue into his canvass for Federal
Senatorship is not obvious. The
proposition will certainly not COM
mend itself to the conservative ele-
ments Of the State Democracy, and
the classes which look chiefly to
partisan results would certainly op-
pose it as likely to give the Repub-
hcans the power to name the judges
in five or more Circuits as at pres
ent laid out. The change was sug-
gested in the Convention that franz
ed the Constitution and was decis-
lively defeated after thorough de-
bate. For ourselves we believe
that the present method of choosing
ing judges is far preferable to that
which would make these officials
descend into the political arena and
struggle for place on a level with
the scrambles for Offices which call
for no exceptional qualifications of
ability or training"
We think the Virginian- Pilot is crit
cising Mr.. Jones over the best sugges
lion that has been made by any reform
Democrat in the State. That the cleo
ion of judges by the people would b,
more likely to give US a non-partisar
judiciary than does the present mode o.
Ielecting judges is a reasonable con
:lusion. Our Norfolk contem
'orsry tells US that the change Of
method was suggested in the conven.
ion that framed the constitution, but
vas decisively defeated" Why was il
defeated. Because the change would
probably give the Republicans the
'ower to name the judges in five OF
more circuits. This was why the parti.
an Democrats in the constitutional
convention violated the Democratic
Doctrine of popular government and
peal self-government. The Virginia
judiciary was then and there placed in
he arena of partisan politics and there
has been ever since. The judges are
lot only selected because they are Dem
Gratis, but they must be acceptable to
he faction that has control of political
'ower in the State. Judgeships are
ometimes treated as articles of trade
y Democratic members of the lepisla-
ure; and men are somtimes selected
or judicial positions as the result of
that are made to further
he interests of aspiring politicians.
legislative wisdom is made subordinate
D political dickering, and one member
the legislature is frequently invested
nth power to name the judge for his
rcuit.
In New York, Pennsylvania and many
Their great States of the Union Judges
re elected by the people. In circuits
, districts where the Democrats have
majority Democrats are elected
dges, and where the Republicans have
majority Republicans are elected.
nd sometimes Democratic judge is
ldorsed by the Republicans and some
mes a Republican is endorsed by the
There was time when all the Judges
Virginia were elected by the people.
lie Wings would elect where they had
e majority and the Democrats would
ect where they had the power. But
} never heard then of any Judge being
political partisan. The Virginia ju-
.isry of those days would not suffer
comparison with that of TODAY.