ence, considering the number of those appointed and of those elected, is there any manifest superior ity in the former, and are such courts more deeply fixed in the confidence of the people? We submit a negative answer. Looking at the State of New York, for example, that State has elected a very great number of judges, all of a good measure of ability, and all of a high degree of integrity, with two or three notorious exceptions growing out of the general demoralization of the times in politics, which probably would have infested the appointing as well as the electing power. It is common, at least in the State of New York, for both parties to agree on the re-election of an incumbent who has won the respect and favor of the community in long service. Emi nent examples have been made in New York in the case of several judges of the highest court within a few years. We can imagine nothing worse in that State than to put the appointing power in the hands of the governor, except to intrust it to one of those unspeakable legislatures! It is our belief that with the reasonably long term of office which prevails in New York and Pennsylvania the elective system is preferable. Even with the appointing system we should deprecate the life tenure. It is within the recollection of all our readers that in the Federal Supreme Court one judge died in office, after years of incapacity, because he had not mind enough to resign, and another clung to the office four years after he ceased to perform any judicial labor, in order to be qualified to draw his pension! These inconveniences may at least be considered when the occasional unworth! ness of a iudge is urged against the election system. It is putting a dangerous power into the hands of a State governor to allow him to appoint judges for life. He may appoint all or many of his own party, and thus in time the court may be permanently in opposition to the preferences of the people. This we do not believe to be fair, although we hardly need say that we deprecate politics on the bench, and we may add that we believe they seldom find a lodgment there. How fair and unbiassed elected judges can be has been strikingly illustrated in the last few years in the decisions upon questions of districting and elections. At all events, it is reasonably certain that the people of the twenty-seven States mentioned by Mr. Field are not going to relinquish or delegate this power; and it behooves all good citizens to make the best of the situation. APPOINTMENT OF MR. JUSTICE HORNBLOWER. — This appointment has elicited universal approval. The gentleman has had but two predecessors who were younger at the time of appointment. It is well to put young blood into the court, notwithstanding Mr. Hornblower's youthfulness almost exactly par
allels that of Mr. Skimpin, who was "a promising young man of two or three and forty." Mr. Hornblower is undoubtedly a very good lawyer, although not of the broadest cast of mind, and will probably, after some experience, satisfactorily fill the place of Mr. Justice Blatchford. We should say that the cast of his mind is rather judicial than toward advocacy, that he has a calm and dispassionate judgment, and that his integrity is spotless. The Easy Chair has an old but good-natured quarrel with Mr. Hornblower in respect to general codification, of which measure he has always been an influential, indus trious, and ingenious opponent. Probably this is what leads us to think that there are broader minds than his, for we cannot conceive that any broad intellect can bring itself to believe that it is impos sible or impolitic to write the laws in statutes, when it has so long been done in decisions. Perhaps л few years of judicial experience will tend to modify his opinions on this subject. But this is aside from the question of the new justice's probable merits as a magistrate. He has learning, dignity, and industry, and will not give reason for any dimi nution of the popular respect for the most sacred of our country's institutions. It is gratifying to ob serve that so respectable an appointment is put to the President's credit by men of all parties.
THE FLITCH OF BACON. — The stability of Eng lish customs is well illustrated in a recent incident which we find chronicled in the London "Tele graph," as follows : — "Two young married couples presented themselves before a jury of maidens and bachelors in the quaint old town of Dunmow, Essex, yesterday, and claimed the flitch of bacon, the annual award which has made the place so famous. The presiding judge was a local auctioneer, wliu administered to the candidates the customary oath where by they swore that for a year and a day they had ' ne'er made nuptial transgression,' nor ' offended each other in word or in deed,' nor 'since the church clerk said "Amen," wished themselves unmarried again.' Mr. Francis Webb, a railway clerk of Wednesbury, and his wife, were the first to submit to the ordeal of a searching cross-examination. Counsel on their behalf having eli cited that, ' by means of their quiet, peaceable, tender, and loving' life they were fit and qualified persons to receive the coveted distinction, another lawyer rose in the ca pacity of ' devil's advocate ' and sought to throw doubt on their story. Failing in this, he next applied himself to weakening the case of Mr. and Mrs. Philip Garner of West Molesey, Surrey; but the horse-slaughterer and his wife also proved too much for him. The cross-examina tion afforded unbounded amusement to the assembled audience, who were highly delighted when a verdict was given in favor of both couples. At the close of the trial the winners were required to kneel on sharp stones and
