division of sthe State into Gubernatorial districts.
But when the term comes round again, there is
I believe, nothing in the old Constitution, or in
the new Constitution, so far as acted on, to pre-
vent him from being re-eligible. If the people
desire to re-elect a Governor of member of Con-
gress, if they desire to elect any civil officer, let
them have the poor privilege (for it is such) to
pass judgment upon his conduct, and say to him,
if a just man, "Well done, thou good and faithful
servant, you shall be rewarded and re-elected by
us." I do say that the great evil of the life ten-
ure of the judges, is that they are irresponsible.
They may do as they please; they may favor suit-
ors as they please, and except the mere brutum
fulmen of impeachment, which has never been
successfully tried in this country, they have not
been amenable or responsible to any public senti-
ment or any controlling influence whatever. I
desire judges to be responsible to some one. I do
not regard the power of impeachment, even in
the manner in which it is guarded and amplified
by the report of the chairman of the judiciary
committee, as sufficient. Men are not willing to
come forward and impeach a judge in all his
"pride of place" and influence. If they succeed
in getting an impeachment up, his powerful and
influential friends will unite to acquit him, when
he ought to be convicted. When the people come
to arraign the judges, and they are presented for
reelection, the sober judgment of the people will
be brought to bear upon them, and they will de-
cide for or against them, according to their merits
or demerits. It is to avoid this responsibility
which we find in life tenures, that it is proposed
to make the judges re-elible; and for the reasons
I have given, I will vote for their re-eligibility.
Mr. THOMAS was assigned the floor, but gave
way at the request of
Mr. CHAMBERS, who said, I will endeavor to
show, in as few words as possible, that the very
argument relied on for the re-election of politi-
cal officers, who have so conducted themselves
as to gain the favor of the people, is a conclu-
sive one against the re-election of a judge. The
single reason assigned for the re-election is,
that they have conformed to the wishes of a
majority of their constituents, or those who
control a majority, and have thereby gained
their favor. Now, how is this effected? We are
answered, "by doing their duty faithfully." Aye!
but that leaves another important question un-
answered. Who determines the question of
faithful performance? There is an old saying,
but still true, "orthodoxy is my doxy, hetero-
doxy is your doxy." Suppose the representa-
tive to be intelligent, and patriotic, and reso-
lute in the purpose of doing his duty usefully,
regardless of party influences; and in obeying
such a purpose, be called on to give a vote
which shall operate, or by his party be supposed
to operate injuriously on its interests, what is
the result? Will his abilities, will his honesty,
save him? No, sir, he has not expressed the
wishes of the friends who placed him in office,
and he will be turned aside to make room for
one who will. Now, sir, is this the case with
your judge, or ought it to be the case? is he |
chosen to be the organ of the majority? Ought
he to express his own opinion, of what is the
law, or the opinion of the people, or any body
else? Is he to consult party interests and party
feelings? No, sir, he is bound, at the peril of
his conscience, and all that he regards sacred,
to pursue the straight-forward course which
truth and honesty point out; he is not to feel,
or know any other motive, but a high sense of
duty; he is not to know, or to care, who shall be
gratified or offended by his decision. This, sir,
is the true distinction between the two cases,
and on this distinction I base my utter abhor-
rence of this idea of a re-election of a judge
after a term of ten years, or any other limited
period.
Mr. THOMAS said, I was somewhat ambitious
to take some little part in this discussion, but I
forbore to do so, from the belief that the very
elaborate argument as urged by the gentleman
From Kent (Mr. Chambers) had been well dis-
posed of by my colleague, (Mr. Johnson.) From
what has fallen from the gentleman from Kent
today, it seems to me that he is rather surprised
at the judgment of this Convention upon the
theories which he divulged, by the very large
vote (nearly double) against those theories. I do
not wonder that the gentleman feels amazed at it,
as well as those gentlemen who pronounced his
argument not only unanswered, but unanswera-
ble.
I never have, from the commencement, felt the
slightest trepidation about the course we are pur-
suing. I confess that the gentleman's argument
made very little impression upon me then, and I
saw it made very little impression upon the Con-
vention. We live in a day and an age when con-
stantly occurring incidents and facts are coming
under our observation, and the knowledge of
every man in society puts to flight all these old
theories. We are experimenting first in one
branch of government, and then in another, and
have found that nearly all of these old theories
will not apply to a system like ours. The gen-
tleman has relied mostly upon authority. Why,
I would ask him. even if we were to travel back,
upon this question of the Judiciary, to the au-
thorities of by-gone ages, to the days of the Rev-
olution, and to men who were educated in that
age, upon the subject of human rights, where
would we find ourselves? If we are to look only
to the great men of our revolutionary age for au-
thority in all branches of government, and go
back to the days when our Revolution was
wrought out or our Confederacy was formed, we
shall have to change many opinions now almost
universally entertained. Consult the men of those
days on the subject of the expansibility of the
Confederacy. It was a grave question, mooted in
those days, whether this Confederacy should be
extended so as to encompass the Northwestern
Territory. The subject was elaborately and ably
debated. At that age the compressibility of hu-
man society was not as great as it is now. Then
the men were wise and great, but still they did
not possess our experience. At the time of the
annexation of Louisiana, some of the very wisest
and most patriotic men of the Confederacy pre- |
