Out with Them.
Our people have by this time purchased the significant lesson that it is impossible to create an elective judiciary, worthy of esteem and capable of discharging the onerous functions committed to their custody. The learned Sancho Panza observed, with respect to the impossibility of creating silk purses out of sows’ ears. We can do likewise as to the utter inability of manufacturing judges, worthy of the ermine, from raw material, such as Mr. Recorder Barnard and City Judge Russell, neither of whom would be selected to decide upon the merits of a cock fight, much less to determine the rights of personal liberty. Is the evil to be longer endured, to be incessantly repeated, or are the people to take the matter in their own hands that we may divest ourselves from the burdens which Sinbad-like we are compelled to bear on our shoulders?
We have thoroughly tested the question of an elective judiciary, both theoretically and practically, and we have arrived at one conclusion—that we obtain politicians instead of judges, and thereby jeopardize the very foundation of our national liberties. We have done more, and openly pandered to the lowest vice in suffering the right of ballot to be prostituted in order that the most unworthy of men may creep into the judiciary. We have emptied the tap-rooms and bar-rooms of their tenants, and have thus sullied the dignity of the ermine. We have also done everything in our power to neutralize the benevolent intentions of our republican institutions, by corrupting the only safeguard for their perpetuation. And this series of calamities is chiefly attributable to the introduction of the political manœvre of rendering the judiciary elective, and thus we have sacrificed the wisdom of our revolutionary ancestors.
A few years ago, when the judiciary were appointed by the State Senate, and served until physical infirmities limited the term, the New York Bench were unrivalled for learning, courtesy and literary acquirements. Our criminal judges were particularly distinguished, and the name of Richard Riker, for many years Recorder of New York, will be remembered as that of a worthy and respected magistrate. Whence have we receded to secure Russells and Barnards? Nay, we have even gone to the length of creating offices which are perfectly useless, and filled them with idle incumbents. Will any man say that the City Court exists as a matter of necesity, or that the duties of the officers do not belong to other authorities? If not, why not erect a court-room and not compel its presiding dignitary to lounge a hanger-on the Court of Sessions. Probably it is better for the common weal, and more in accordance with Mr. Russell’s antecedents, that he be suffered to continue in this way of life, in which the extent of mischief may be kept within limit. In the approaching constitutional convention, the question of an elective judiciary will be fairly at issue, and it is one duty that we owe to ourselves to re-organize the magistracy, that its ancient character for integrity and truth may be revived and perpetuated. This work of purification will probably be strenuously opposed by those of our politicians, who are dependent to the gangs of shoulder hitters, and brothel pimps, now infecting our city and rendering the elective franchise a political caricature. If we suffer this opportunity to escape us, we are unworthy the character of freemen, and deservedly the cellars of a judiciary, as incompent as it is useless, and as useless as it is expensive.