Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-05-19
SHOULD OUR JUDGES BE
ELECTED OR APPOINTED? =?
William Draper Leos Gives the Commission Constitutional
amendment and Revision Reasons for Fauoring
Appointiue System

During the discussion by the com
mission on constitutional amendment
and repision Of the matter of an dp-
pOintire system for judges of courts
of record, William Draper LeioiS.
secretary. presented brief from
nhich the tollowing excerpts are
made:
MY POLITICAL past and my known
AV1 present position on public questions
is such that ] can advocate the constitu =
tional change which ! now call to your
attention without danger of being ac-
cused of doing so on account of con =
scious or unconscious desire to keep
things as they are. or because of any
enthusiasm for extreme conservative
positions on public questions. Indeed,
il is as q progressive and as one vitally
interested in social legislation that |
ask you to consider the advisability OF
giving to the electorate of the state the
right to pass on the question whether
they desire to substitute an appOintive
for an elective judiciary. The election
of Judges il, | believe, unsound the
oretically, and practically it does not
work as we'll as the appointive system.
have an abiding faith in democracy.
The cure for most of the evils under
which we suffer Is more, not less, de =
mocracy. There is no educational force
in the community comparable with the
ballot no evil greater than any curtail
mept of the franchise. But all this does
not mean that the people should elect
all their servants. Members of the
LEGISLATURE and those executive officers
who are charged with the duty of in
itiatipg or carrying out policies should
be selected by the electorate. But the
very qualities which make the electorate
the only body to ultimately decide pub
lie policy units them for the very
different task of selecting the trained
expert to perform definite designated
service We do not elect our doctors
who man our health department, the
engineers who lay our roads or the for
ester who becomes our commissioner of
forestry. And yet all these employ
ments require no more highly trained
snecialists than the business of the
iudee. 1t seems to me to be automatic
that wherever the duty to be performed
is ministerial duty, into which Ques
tions of policy do not enter and which
reouire for their efficient performance
wears of special preparation, then the
nublic officer to perform that duty
should be selected by some other process
than that of election. While this state
ment is, l believe, OF almost universe
application, it Is peculiarly applicable
To the judiciary. We often hear the
expression "judicial temperament. BY
this. I take 1t, we mean temperament
making it natural for the possessor tc
analyze a problem on all sides, to weigh
different points of view and reach q
conclusion only after careful considera
tion. free from prejudice. Such TEN
nerament, while 1t by no means in
capacitates man from making public
EXPRESSION of his carefully thought Ou
opinion, usually does make him shur
the stump and the election contest.
Had we no experience to guide us, il
is fairly certain that, in the long run
the judicial business would be better
done and as consequence the peopl,
would have a.greater confidence in tn,
administration of justice in the stat,
in which the judiciary were appointed
not elected. The business of the au
ministratiop Of justice is highly spe
cialized business, and the turmoil of al
election is not the machinery for thu
selection of experts competent to handl,
IL and TTOUl ,NhNu VIC huN' ItdHOu u
hone for the best results.
We are however, fortunately not il
n nosition of being obliged to depend
on purely theoretical speculation. W.
are having today, in this country, prac
tical demonstration Of the comparatiy,
results of elective and appontive Judi
cial systems. Our federal judiciary il
anpointiye. There are states, like Mas
LnN hn. A.
other than the appointive system. w
have the material at our hand for
comparative study of results. My con
tention is that this study leads to N,
uncertain conclusion. II there is an,
place where 1t might be doubted whethe
an appointive judiciary system woul,
in practice prove, satisfactory It woul'
be the local federal judiciary. IN
vyeat size of the United States make
| n impossible that the President shout
Low the local pecuiiaritiss3 and need