The Court of Appeals of Kentucky. in 1824 a bare majority of the two houses of the legislature, being dissatisfied with some decisions of the court and being with out the power to remove the judges, passed a bill to repeal the act organizing the court, and immediately sought to reorganize an other court, to be made up of different judges. The governor of the State lent his active aid to the scheme. This brought on a violent struggle that rent the State into two factions, known respectively as the " Old Court" and " New Court " parties. After a struggle of several years, the "Old Court" party triumphed, but the "New Court " adherents, allying themselves with the Democratic party, eventually se cured the adoption in 1850 of a third Con stitution that materially changed the tenure of office and the mode of election of the judiciary. It was said by men of that day that the " New Court " party had " made a bill of sale of itself to the Democrats." It is a fact that most of " New Court" men were followers of Andrew Jackson (two of them were in his cabinet), while the "Old Court " party numbered among its adherents mainly those who belonged to the Whig party and supported Henry Clay in his aspirations. In the course of time the Whigs declined in power, both in the State and throughout the country, and when the Democrats finally gained the ascendency in Kentucky, there came the Constitution of 1850. It would be extremely interesting, if time or space permitted, to watch these sidelights on the drama of national politics as produced on the miniature stage of Kentucky. In 1849, the third Constitutional Conven tion of the State assembled in Frankfort. It had been called, in fact, by the friends of slavery for the purpose of absolutely fasten ing that system upon the State, but when it assembled it was found that most of the mem bers were in sympathy with some proposed radical changes in the judiciary. With one dissenting vote (that of Garrett Davis, afterwards United States senator, who
343
left the convention rather than sign a Con stitution providing for an elective judiciary), the third Constitution was submitted to the people of the State, and was by them in 1850 ratified by a large vote. It was pro mulgated on June ii, 1850, and went into full effect in 1851. By its terms the Court of Appeals was established to consist of four judges to be elected by popular vote—one from each of four districts in the State. The term of office of the judges was fixed at eight years, except that those first chosen would hold their offices for terms of two, four, six and eight years respectively, to be determined by lot among them. Thus an election for at least one judge of the court was provided for every two years. The judge having the shortest time to serve became chief justice of the court. The right of removal by impeach ment or address was retained as in the for mer Constitutions. When this third Constitution was submit ted to the people it was violently opposed by many, chiefly because of the elective judi ciary feature. Others favored its adoption for that very reason, as many of the inferior judges had exposed themselves to just cen sure upon charges of nepotism and arbitrary conduct. The proslavery features of the new instrument and the support of nearly all the leading Democrats overcame all op position, and it was ratified by a large vote. For the first twenty-five years under the Constitution of 1850, the people were so oc cupied with the questions leading up to the Civil War and the problems that grew out of it, that the mode of selecting judges caused less comment than would have otherwise re sulted. At the end of that period the peo ple had grown so accustomed to electing their judges that all thoughts of choosing them in a different way came to be consid ered as chimerical. It was generally consid ered that the voters of the State would not give up a privilege which they had exercised so long. Accordingly when another Consti
