Bribery or attempting to bribe a judge was, at common law, a very grave offence. In deed the earlier definitions of bribery seem to confine the offence to judicial officers; 4 Bla. Cora. 139 ; 3 Inst. 145 ; and they were criticised for being too narrow. See 1 East 183 ; 4 Burr. 2494 ; 2 Bish. N. Cr. L. § 85, n. 1.
Upon the same ground are condemned sin ister approaches, with intent to influence judges indirectly, though not amounting to bribery; id.; and on this subject it was said by Lord Cottenham: "Every private com munication to a judge, for the purpose of in fluencing his decision upon a matter publicly before him, always is, and ought to be, re probated ; it is a course calculated, if tolerat ed, to divert the course of justice, and is con sidered, and ought, more frequently than it is, to be treated, as what it really is, high contempt of court." 1 Macn. & G. 116, 122.
Judges appointed or elected in a vari ety of ways in the United States. For the federal courts they are appointed by the pres ident, by and with the consent of the senate; in some of the states they are appointed by the governor, the governor and senate, or by the legislature. The judges of the federal courts and of the courts of some of the states hold their offices during good behavior ; of others, during good behavior, or until they shall attain a certain age ; and of others, for a limited term of years. The federal judges must have the tenure of office during good be havior conferred upon them before they can be invested with any portion of the judicial power ; Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.
Impartiality is the first duty of a judge: if he has any (the slightest) interest in the cause, he is disqualified from sitting as a judge ; caiquis non debet esse judex in pro pria causa; 8 Co. 118 ; Hill v. Wells, 6 Pick. (Mass.) 109 ; Gregory v. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 675; Knight v. Hardeman, 17 Ga. 253 ; San born v. Fellows, 22 N. H. Hawley v. Baldwin, 19 Conn. 585; Howell v. Budd, 91 Ca/. 342, 27 Pac. 747 ; Chase v. Weston, 75 Ia. 159, 39 N. W. 246; such as his relation ship to the parties ; People v. Connor, 142 N. Y. 130, 36 N. E. 807; even where such party is administrator only ; Dennard v. Jor dan, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 398, 37 S. W. 876 (but
relationship to plaintiff's attorney will not disqualify him ; Patton v. Collier, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 544, 38 S. W. 53). Either party may make the objection that the judge is of kin to one of them ; Kelly v. Rocket, 10 Ind. 299; and it is for the judge to determine, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, whether by reason of kinship, etc., it would be improper for him to hear a particular case ; he cannot be compelled to vacate the bench by the affidavit of the litigant ; By ram's Ex'rs v. Holliday, 84 Ky. 18. A pe cuniary interest in the case on trial will in capacitate him from sitting in the cause, both by the common law and the statutes ; Ochus v. Sheldon, 12 Fla. 138; Buckingham v. Dav is, 9 Md. 324 ; Pearce v. Atwood, 13 Mass. 340; as where he is interested as a stock holder in a railroad corporation making an application for a commission to appraise land, his interest is such as to invalidate the report of the commissioneri; Gregory v. R. Co., 4 Ohio St. 675 ; or was a member of a ,mutual benefit society ; Texas-Sovereign Camp v. Hale, 56 Tex. Civ. App. 447, 120 S. W. 539; or where the judge's wife was a stockholder in a corporation which was a party ; First Nat. Bank v. McGuire, 12 S. D. 226, 80 N. W. 1074, 47 L. R. A. 413, 76 Am. St. Rep. 598. Where a statute disqualified a judge by reason of relationship with either litigant within the sixth degree, this did not disqualify a judge because he and the plain tiff's attorney had married sisters ; Zambetti v. Garton, 113 N. Y. Supp. 804; where the lord chancellor, who was a shareholder in a company in whose favor the vice-chan cellor had made a decree, affirmed this decree, it was reversed on that ground ; 3 H. L. Cas. 759 ; but it has been held that where the interest of the judge is merely that of a corporator in a municipal corporation, the legislature may provide that this shall con stitute no disqualification when the corpora tion is a party, apparently on the ground that the interest is insignificant ; Commonwealth v: Reed, 1 Gray (Mass.) 475. But it is .doubt ful whether even the legislature can go be yond this class of cases and abolish the rule stated in the maxim ; Cooley, Coast. Lim. 516.