since been elective, with the exception of some of the minor courts.
The advantages of the two methods is an open question. The arguments
in favor of appointment are that it makes for an independent judiciary
and that it secures better men for the bench, whereas the other does
not, because the highest class lawyer will not go through the turmoil
and supposed degradation of a political campaign. These arguments are
not sound.

The argument for the election of judges is that it keeps the bench
more humane, modern, and in touch with the will of the people. The one
is the aristocratic idea, the other the democratic. A court as at
present constituted is an autocratic institution but the judges should
be democrats. A feeling prevails that the man who has gone through a
course of political sprouts involving the training of election
campaigns, is more understanding of the wants of the people whom he is
to serve, also that courts should be arranged on a business basis.

An amusing aspect of an elective judge is that he is in an anomalous
position. If he plays politics, endeavors to make friends either by
his decisions on the bench or obeying the mandates of a superior
political boss as to appointment of referees and receivers, he
immediately becomes a corrupt judge. The stench of his unjust
decisions will sooner or later come to the nostrils of the community
and his chances of reëlection are forfeited. He runs the hazard of
charges and removal.

If, on the other hand, he forgets the organization that has elected
him either in the matter of patronage or the refusal of some desired
court remedy, and so conducts his court that there shall be neither
fear nor favor, he is a political ingrate and deserves neither