St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1914-07-22

pIetely oblfterate it or do they leave
Something that should BIZ preserved?
IT will be noted that none of the
amendments quoted deal with the
election of judges or justices of the
Supreme Court. Disregarding, for the
moment, Article &c, to be consider
ed later, the revisors had ample war
rant in framing out OF the remnant
of the quoted clause in Section 9, IN
touched by subsequent amendments
and therefore continued, the new
Section 43, which reads as follows:
''The Joint Assembly may bienniaIly
on their first session after their cleo
ton Cor oftener if need be) elect
Justices of the Supreme Court and
Judges of the several county courts
Except Assistant Judges of the
county courts) and also may elect
Major-Generals and Brigadier-G ener-
ais, from time to time, as often as
there shall be OCCASION
Now let us consider what effect
Article &c had on this. 1t reads:
'tThe judges of the Supreme Court
shall be elected biennially and their
term of Office shall be two years. :"
Did this amendment completely null
lily the other, or was it merely sup
Elemental? Would the revisors have
been justified in throwing out en-
tirely all that remained of the old
section, and would the constitution
be complete with Article rs alone?
Article 26 prescribes how often the
judges of the Supreme Court shall be
elected and how long their terms
shall be. 1t does not prescribe when
they shall be elected or by whom.
The remnant of Section 9, preserved
in Section AZ by the revisors, sup
plies just what is lacking and what,
if omitted, Gas indeed there was no
warrant for doing) would nave left
these absolutely essential features of
the election of justices unprovided
for. The questions of whether the
justices should he elected by the
general assembly or by the people
or how, and at what time in the BIZ
ennial period, would have been be-
yond determination had the revfsors
of Chapter ii taken the responsible
ity of assuming that the original
clause was completely superseded by
Article 26. No other portion of the
constitution or of the amendments
has any bearing upon it to be con-
sidered as conclusive.
Accordingly, the revisors did the
only thing they could do and the
thing they had absolute warrant for
doing. They preserved the remnant
of the original clause in the form of
Section 43 and of course followed it
with Article 81 embodied in Section
A, the two being essential parts of
the machinery for the election of the
court members.
AS to whether there is not some
conflict between the two sections as
they stand, with respect to the time
when the assembly shall or may
elect, opinion will differ. We as
sumo the revisors would not have
felt justified, under the peculiar cir
cumstances, in rewriting either sec
ton, if any questions as to their in
harmony arose. They doubtless saw
the urgency of the provision giving
the general assembly permission to
elect oftener than once during its
biennial session ''if need be-" The
settled policy of the state is that it's
higher court judges shall be chosen
by the legislature, the representa-
tives of the people. Suppose that
after having elected and while the
legislature were still in session a va
cancy in the bench should occur.
Would it not be travesty for The
place to be filled by appointment
with the legislature already conven-
ed and ready to act? Yet if the
judges can only be chosen by the
legislature biennia1ly and that body
has no power to act "oftener if need
be-" as would have been the effect
but for Section 43, the state would
face that peculiar situation-a gov
ernor appointing a judge while the
hands of the electing body we're
clasped in a rigid time lock.
These are only a few reasons
which, we assume, led the revisors
to formulate Section 43 as it stands.
That they are well grounded will ap-
pear plain. That nothing of a sin
lister nature actuated the revisors
will also be clear to all who really
want to derstand.-Herald and
News.