arisen. There have been too many examples of the viciousness of this policy of having judges dependent for their positions on the bidding of political chiefs to warrant taking the risk of extending the system. The solution would seem to lie in such liberal provisions as exist in the Constitution of Massachusetts.
The recall of judges is not a new idea. It was suggested and even vigorously applied in this country even before the adoption of the United States Constitution. In the years between the Revolution and the adoption of this Constitution, each State issued paper money.
The paper currency showed an immediate tendency to drop to two cents or thereabouts on the dollar. Mutton chops could sometimes be obtained for $4 apiece and a good wearable hat for $40; but more usually a prudent shopkeeper preferred to lose his customer than handle such precarious stuff. Clearly something was wrong and the people taking thought discovered that it was the shopkeepers who needed coercion. Laws accordingly were passed with this object, and when they were defied, the matter came before the Courts. The Judges sitting amid the noisy demonstration of popular anger, decided nevertheless that the laws were invalid and absolved the defendants. Up to this time there had been if not unanimity at any rate a huge majority supporting the panacea; but now there was a division. One party grumbled but owned itself defeated; the other with a stern logic discovered that to complete the system the judges must be done away with or intimidated. In Rhode Island they were accordingly dismissed, and elsewhere there was dangerous rioting. In Massachusetts there was civil war.[1]
- ↑ F. S. Oliver, Life of Alexander Hamilton, p. 136.
