the Governor for eight years. Texas also limits their term of office to six years, but places the appointment in the Governor.

In the remaining States the judges are, I believe, appointed in the manner hitherto deemed by all authority and experience to be the only one by which the independence of the judiciary can be secured, and with it the rights and liberties of the people; that is, by the Executive, and during good behaviour.

It is impossible to look upon this widespread departure from the only practice which could secure the independence of the judiciary, without recognising in it a feeling, as widely diffused, which aims at putting an end to that independence. The burden of all those elaborate arguments and earnest warnings of the greatest statesmen and lawyers whom the United States has produced, as above quoted, has been, that there was but one check, under their system of government, upon the self-will of democracies, one security against the tyranny of the majority, and that was to be found in the independence of the judicial body. We

have seen that this independence was attacked as far back as the year 1801, by President Jefferson, in his endeavour to bring about an alteration in the Constitution, which would permit of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States being appointed for terms of years only. We have seen that, by an Act of Congress, in the year 1803, judges of the Circuit Courts of the United States, who had been appointed in accordance with the Constitution, were, by a legislative Act, dismissed, in a manner, according to the best legal opinions, totally unauthorised by the Constitution; and that President Jackson advocated the principle of appointments for terms of years in 1829 and in 1832.

It is perfectly well known also that from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the present day, there has existed a strong feeling of jealousy, and an open hostility, on the part of the ultra-democratic body throughout the Union, in relation to the judiciary, whether of the individual States or of the Union; and it is only too evident that this jealousy and hos

tility have manifested themselves in the legis lation which has been above referred to, and by which the judges of so many of the States have been subjected to the ordeal of popular elections, and their tenure of office degraded into one of a temporary and precarious character.

This great revolution in the theory and practice of constitutional government, as understood by the founders of liberty in the United States, is both a consequence of the progress of ultra-democratic principles in that country, and a powerful means of supporting them. The fundamental change in the principles of free government, as hitherto understood in all free countries, has taken effect, as has been seen, in no less than twenty-seven States of the Union. Its consequences upon their individual peace and welfare, upon the tone and character of the State Governments, and the security of those who live under them, are matters beyond the scope of the subjects now under consideration. Within the period of a generation, probably, this will have become abundantly evident.

But its probable results upon

the Constitution of the United States is a question of general interest, and one immediately connected with the matter in hand.

The independence of the judiciary is, to use the words of Mr. Justice Story,

"The citadel of the Constitution." . "Nothing is more facile in republics than for demagogues, under artful pretences, to stir up combinations against the regular exercise of authority. Their selfish purposes are too often interrupted by the firmness and independence of upright magistrates, not to make them at all times hostile to a power which rebukes, and an impartiality which condemns them. The judiciary, as the weakest point in the Constitution on which to make an attack, is therefore constantly that to which they direct their assaults, and a triumph here, aided by any momentary popular encouragement, achieves a lasting victory over the Constitution itself. Hence, in republics, those who are to profit by popular commotions or the prevalence of faction are always the enemies of a regular and independent administration of justice. They spread all sorts of delusions, in order to mislead the public mind and excite the public prejudices. They know full well, that without the aid of the people their schemes must prove abortive, and they, therefore, employ every art to undermine the public confidence, and to make the people the instruments of subverting their own rights and liberties." *

* §§ 1611, 1621.

Now, by the fifth Article of the Constitution, the mode of proceeding to make amendments to it is as follows:

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions of three-fourths thereof, as one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by Congress."

Already the Legislatures of much more than "two-thirds of the several States " (twenty-seven out of thirty-one) have destroyed the independence of the judiciary, by rendering their offices elective, or their tenure for a few years only, or both.

There can be no doubt that the proportion will steadily, not to say rapidly, increase; for there can be no question of the ultra-democratic tendencies of all the new States that are rising in the extreme west. When, therefore, Oregon, Minesota, Utah (the Mormon