1888. COURTS (County), Election of Judges.—[continued].
It has been thought that
the people are not competent electors of
judges learned in the law. But I do not
know that this is true, and, if doubtful, we
should follow principle. In this, as in many
other elections, they would be guided by reputation,
which would not err oftener, perhaps,
than the present mode of appointment. In
one State of the Union, at least, it has long
been tried, and with the most satisfactory
success. The judges of Connecticut have
been chosen by the people every six months,
for nearly two centuries, and I believe there
has hardly ever been an instance of change;
so powerful is the curb of incessant responsibility.
If prejudice, however, derived from
a monarchical institution, is still to prevail
against the vital elective principle of our own,
and if the existing example among ourselves
of periodical election of judges by the people
be still mistrusted, let us at least not adopt the
evil, and reject the good, of the English precedent;
let us [Virginia] retain amovability on
the concurrence of the executive and legislative
branches, and nomination by the executive
alone.—
To Samuel Kerchival. Washington ed. vii, 12.
Ford ed., x, 39.
(M.
1816)
