Page:A Brief History of the Constitution and Government of Massachusetts (1925).pdf/48

 used, which is without limitation, that the right of removal by address is quite unrestricted. This particular clause, however, like many others, was taken from the British system of government, where, instead of the original power of the King to remove judges, the Act of Settlement at the time of William and Mary provided that they could be removed by the King on address made to him by Parliament. No hearing was provided for and no restriction was placed on the cause of removal. The power of the King arbitrarily and alone to remove judges was taken from him,—that was all. As in Great Britain a hearing has been usual on petitions for removal by address so in Massachusetts the justice of the people and their demand for fair play will ever avail to secure the accused a hearing. Few cases have arisen in either jurisdiction. Where a serious offense is charged, impeachment is the natural method of procedure. But so far as precedent goes, a hearing is customary, and any cause may be alleged (not alone disability) to justify removal by address.

Because the judges in Massachusetts have so seldom abused their power; because the people feel that they are men of uprightness and great learning; because they know that only through stability and security of tenure of office, regardless of fear, of political cliques and parties, can justice be maintained; because of the liberal method of removing judges provided in its Constitution, there has not been, nor do I think there is, any popular demand either for the recall of judges or of judicial decisions in that Commonwealth. Strange to say, it has been in States where judges are elected that the complaints against their decisions have