Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-05-19
SELECTING OUR JUDGES

THE highly informative and inter-
Il esting suggestion to the constitu-
tional commission made by DR.. William
Draper Lewis. advocating an appoin-
tive system for the judges Of courts of
record, which is printed on this page,
deserves thoughtful attention. Even
though the commission did not approve
of Doctor Lewis's plan and retained
the old elective system. the. arguments
set forth are no less worthy Of study.
The foundation of democratic gov
ernment lies in capable and learned
judiciary whose integrity is beyond all
question. Therefore the selection Of
the right kind of men concerns init
matcly the welfare of every citizen.
Doctor Lewis argues that the public
should not select all Of its servants
through the electorate and points out
that we do not so choose our doctors.
our engineers or our foresters. adding
that these men are required to have
no greater degree Of technical learning
than our judges. He lays down as a
general governmental principle that.
where the duty to be performed is a
ministerial one involving no question
of policy and which requires for its
performance years Of special training
then the selection should be by some
means other than that of election.
Another important feature in the
selection of judges, Doctor Lewis
points out. is the question of the
judicial temperament" which makes
the possessor of it almost invariably
shun the stump and the election con-
test. thus depriving the people of some
of their most valuable judicial posi-
biities.
There is no denying the force of
these arguments. and the action of the
commission in this case was probably
more largely due to their natural hest
tation to deprive the people of the right
of selection of officials whose duties
concern them so closely than to any
disposition to consider that Doctor
Lewis had not made a case"
The contention of Doctor Lewis is
that the appointive system has worked
out in the federal courts and in states
which have it. such as Massachusetts,
better and more effectively than in the
states which have not adopted this plan.
He adds that in Pennsylvania itself
there is very widespread belief that
judges should be appointed. The ap-
pointive judge, too, is more apt TO have
more knowledge of all branches of the
law than the elected judge.
The principal argument against the
theory of Doctor Lewis is that the
power of appointment lies in the hands
of single person, who, even granted
that his motives are of the highest. is
more apt to make a mistake in his ap-
pointee than where the candidate is the
choice of the electorate. The argument
that the man of the real judicial tenn
permanent will not seek or will even
avoid the stress OF political contest
is sound. but there are also counter
arguments. The men best fitted for the
bench will rarely. it is true. seek the
nomination. but few lawyers will de-
cline it if the Office seeks the man. as
it should above all in the judiciary po-
sitions: in fact, most of them will take
it even at considerable pecuniary
sacrifice. To the credit of our elective
system be it said that the strength of
public opinion has many times forced
the nomination Of fitting candidates and
encompassed the defeat of others who
were not qualified.
The arguments should have attention
because this question is going to come
up again. The selection of proper
members of the bench is a matter upon
which the general public cannot be too
well informed.