In the several states of the United States the judiciary is either appointed by the executive, or, more commonly, elected by the legislature or directly by the people.
The organization of the judiciary is different in the different states, and doss permit of general description here. Iu the older states the judges were for a long time generally nominated by the governor and confirmed by the senate, holding office during good.behavior. To this, however, there was at least one exception; in Vermont, from a very early day, the judges were chosen annually by the legislature; now they are, chosen in the same way. biennially, the legislature meeting but once two years. This method of appointment, which at the time of-its adoption was contrary to the received and therefore regarded with distrust as likely to impair the dignity and independence of the judiciary, is admitted to have worked well. As a general rule, the jutl:res have been the men best fitted forjudicial station, and the courts have accord ingfy maintained a very high character. Nor have•the judges been- changed more fre quently there than in states where they have been appointed in the old way and far longer terms. Of late years, in many states, the practice of electing judges for longer or shorter terms by popular suffrage has, been adopted. In some cities of the largest class it has happened that incompetent and even corrupt men have secured election to the bench. But it is equally true that, under the old system of appointment, unfit men
have attained judicial station as the reward of party service.
In this country it is the universal rule that a judge is not liable to a civil action for acts done in the performance of his legal duties; but for any crime-or misdemeanor he may be impeached. Though the powers to be exercised by any branch of govern ment, national or state, in this country, are carefully defined: in the written coustitu tions, still the interpretation of those constitutions gives rise to very important and delicate questions, which, under our system, are authoritatively settled by the courts of final resort. This power of interpreting the fundamental law is of the highest impor, lance. It is the confirmed habit of the American people to regard as conclusive and binding for the time being the decisions of the judiciary upon questions of constitu tional interpretation. Yet such decisions are always liable to review and teversal by the courts themselves. A striking example of this is furnished in the celebrated "Dyed Scott" case, wherein it was decided by the supreme court of the United States that negroes were not citizens, and therefore that they might be constitutionally held in slavery; but that decision has no force or authority in the same court as now constituted, and has been effectually, though not formally, reversed.