Tenure. The tenure of judges in Illinois varies in the different courts. Justices of the peace and the probate, county and city judges hold their offices for a term of four years. The municipal court judges of Chicago, the superior court judges and the circuit court judges for a term of six years, and the supreme court judges for a term of nine years. There has been some agitation for a longer term for the supreme court judges and for a uniform tenure for the trial judges.

In other states where the judges are elected by the people the terms of the highest judges range from four to twenty-one years. The longest terms are in Pennsylvania-twenty-one years; Maryland, fifteen years; New York, fourteen years; California, Louisiana and West Virginia, twelve years, and Missouri and Wisconsin ten years. In seventeen states the term is six years.15 In most of these states the trial judges are chosen for shorter terms.

In the four states where the highest judges are elected by the legislature, the term is for life in Rhode Island, twelve years in Virginia, ten years in South Carolina and two years in Vermont. In Illinois before 1848 the judges were appointed by the legislature during good behavior.

In Massachusetts and New Hampshire the highest judges are appointed for life; in Delaware for twelve years; in Connecticut for eight years, in Maine for seven years, and in New Jersey for six years. The United States judges are appointed for life.

The advocates of long terms for judges contend that such tenures tend to make judges more impartial, as it removes them from the necessity of seeking re-election; that it tends to produce a stronger bench as it gives the judges greater opportunity to learn the judicial duties and to gain experience. It is also contended that the frequent elections are an unwarranted expense; and that a short tenure limits the available material for judicial officers, as many of the best qualified lawyers will not give up their practice for an uncertain tenure.

On the other hand the opponents of long terms believe that a secure tenure tends towards arbitrariness and ill-treatment of lawyers and litigants by the judges, and takes away the motive of judges to give their best efforts to their work.

Removal of judges. In Illinois judges may be removed by impeachment or by the general assembly. Section 30 of Article VI of the constitution provides: "The general assembly may, for cause entered on the journals, upon due notice and opportunity for defense, remove from office any judge, upon concurrence of three-fourths of all members elected."

Neither method offers an easy means of removing an incompetent or corrupt judge. With short tenures and popular elections, the electors are afforded a way of retiring unsatisfactory judges. If the

16 Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Washington.

tenure or method of selecting judges is changed, other methods of removing judges may be desirable.

In some of the states, judges may be removed only by impeachment, although a number of states have constitutional provisions for removing judges for cause, by the legislature, or by the governor upon address by the legislature. Usually a concurrence of two-thirds of the members elected or two-thirds of each house is necessary.

In the states which permit removal of judges by other proceedings than impeachment the constitutions of Illinois, Kansas, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington and Missouri, provide for their removal by the legislature, while the constitutions of Arkansas, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Texas, Wisconsin, Maryland, Michigan and Pennsylvania provide that judges may be removed by the governor upon the address of the legislature. In Massachusetts and Virginia, extraordinary majorities are not required for this purpose. Two-thirds of the members elected or two-thirds of each house must concur in all of the other states except Washington and Illinois. In these states three-fourths of the members elected to each house must concur. Until the constitution of 1870, a two-thirds majority was specified in Illinois.

In a few states the causes for which judges may be removed by legislative action are specified. The constitutions of Nevada, Michigan, Mississippi and Pennsylvania provide that judges may be removed for cause, not sufficient for impeachment. In North Carolina the only causes for which the legislature may remove is mental or physical disability. In West Virginia "age, disease, mental or bodily infirmity or intemperance" making them incapable of discharging their duties are specified. In Missouri, inability to discharge duties with efficiency by reason of continued sickness or physical or mental disability are the only causes specified. In Washington "incompetency, corruption, malfeasance or delinquency in office or other sufficient cause" is required. In Louisiana "high crimes and misdemeanors, nonfeasance or malfeasance in office, incompetency, corruption, favoritism, extortion or oppression in office, gross misconduct or habitual drunkenness" are the causes. In Texas "wilful neglect of duty, incompetency, habitual drunkenness, oppression in office, or other reasonable cause not sufficient for impeachment."

In Indiana the constitution provides that "any judge who shall have been convicted of corruption or other high crime may, on information in the name of the state be removed from office by the supreme court or in such other manner as may be prescribed by law". The Illinois constitution provides that all officers mentioned in the judicial article, other than judges "shall be removed from office on prosecution and final conviction for misdemeanor in office".

In Massachusetts a constitutional amendment was adopted in 1918, which provides that the governor, with consent of the council, may after due notice and hearing retire judges because of advanced age or mental or physical disability.

The subject of removal will be found discussed in bulletins dealing with the legislative and executive departments. The discussion here is

limited to the removal of judges although attention should be directed to the fact that in Illinois state's attorneys (who are dealt with in the judicial article of the constitution) are removable only on conviction for misdemeanor in office, although their official position gives them control of the machinery for the prosecution of offenses. The constitution applies the same method of removal to other officers than judges who are provided for in the judicial article, and justices of the peace are probably so removable ;16 they are not styled judges by the constitution. Justices of the peace for Chicago before their abolition in 1905 under authority of the constitutional amendment of 1904, were by express constitutional provision subject to removal "by summary proceeding in the circuit or superior court, for extortion or other malfeasance".

Certainly the methods of removing judges are too cumbersome if justices of the peace are included under this designation, and even as to judges of courts of record impeachment or removal by three-fourths of all members elected to each house are unlikely to be employed in other than exceptional cases. Only one impeachment of a judge has been attempted in Illinois (that of Judge Theophilus W. Smith of the supreme court in 1833), and in that case an acquittal resulted, although a majority of the senators were for conviction. In no case has a judge been removed by action of the two houses. In Massachusetts there have been removals both by impeachment and by address of the two houses.17

Retirement. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland and Louisiana have constitutional provisions relating to the retirement of judges on account of age. In Connecticut and New Hampshire a judge is ineligible to serve after he reaches the age of seventy. In New York a judge must retire on the last day of December after reaching the age of seventy, and in Maryland, a judge must retire at seventy unless the legislature sees fit to continue him for the rest of his term. In 1910 a constitutional amendment was adopted in Louisiana by which judges of the superior court who have served for fifteen years may retire on full pay upon reaching the age of seventy-five. In 1918 an amendment in the same state permits district judges to retire on full pay upon reaching the age of seventy-five, provided they have served twenty-five years.

The Illinois general assembly passed an act in 1919 providing that judges of the supreme, circuit, superior, probate, county, city or municipal courts who have reached the age of sixty-five and have served twenty-four years in any one or more of such courts, may upon retirement receive an annual pension equal to one-half the annual compensation received during their last year of service.

16 The attorney general has taken this view. Report and Opinions of the Attorney General, 1914. p. 1201.

17 For a full review of this subject, see Massachusetts Constitutional Convention Bulletin No. 36. The removal of judges in Massachusetts. 1917.

Vacancies. Article VI, Section 32, of the constitution provides that vacancies of officers provided for in the judicial article of the constitution shall be filled by election; but where the unexpired term does not exceed one year, vacancies of judges shall be filled by appointment of the governor.

The statutes provide that when a vacancy shall occur in the office of judge of the supreme court, judge of the circuit court or judge of the county court, the clerk of the court in which the vacancy exists shall notify the governor of such vacancy. If the vacancy occurs within one year before the expiration of the term of office made vacant, the governor fills such vacancy by appointment; but if the unexpired term exceeds one year, the governor issues a writ of election as in other cases of vacancies to be filled by election.18

In order to reduce the expense of special elections, it is usual to call these elections at a time when other elections are being held. This often causes a vacancy to exist for some time before it is filled. In the the inconvenience city, county, probate, circuit or superior courts caused by a vacancy may be obviated by calling other judges to hold court in the city, county or circuit where the vacancy exists, as the statutes provide for the exchange of county judges with each other and with probate judges,19 and the exchange of city and circuit judges,20 and for the assigning of circuit judges to other circuits.21 There is no provision, however, for assigning other judges to assist in the supreme

court.

In other states where judges are elected, it is common for the constitution to prescribe that vacancies in the highest court shall be filled by appointment by the governor until a successor is elected and qualified. Many of the constitutions also specify when the successor shall be elected. In Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Washington and South Dakota, the constitutions provide that the vacancy shall be filled by the governor until the successor shall be elected and shall qualify, and that the successor shall be elected at the next general election. In other states in which the governor appoints until the successor is elected, it is provided that the successor shall be elected at the first general election occurring more than thirty days after the vacancy (Nebraska) and more than six months (Alabama). If the unexpired term does not exceed one year in Illinois, the governor may appoint for such term; in Arkansas the governor can appoint for the full unexpired term if it is not more than nine months, and in West Virginia, if it is not more than two years.

Additional judges, temporary vacancies and ad litem appointments. In case a judge of the city, county, probate, circuit, or superior court is incapacitated or for any reason is unable to sit, another judge may be called in to sit for him, as the statute allows inter

18 Hurd's Revised Statutes, Chap. 46, sec. 131.

19 Hurd's Revised Statutes, Chap. 37. Secs. 215a, 239a.

20 Hurd's Revised Statutes, Chap. 37, Sec. 245.

21 Hurd's Revised Statutes, Chap. 37, Sec. 821.

change of county judges with each other and with probate judges, the interchange of city and circuit judges, and the assignment of circuit judges to other circuits. These provisions permit circuit judges to be called to another circuit to assist when a court gets behind with its work. An Act of 1911 provided that the supreme court might appoint three lawyers in any appellate district to assist the appellate judges in that district, but the operation of the act was limited to a two-year period and no action was taken under it. No provision is made in Illinois for calling judges to assist in the supreme court, when one of the supreme court judges is incapacitated or when the court is unable to keep up with its work.

The increased litigation in this state, has caused measures to be taken at various times to relieve the supreme court of some of its work. The constitution of 1870 increased the number of supreme court judges from three to seven, and permitted the general assembly to create appellate courts. In 1877 appellate courts were created. In 1909 a statute was passed making decisions of the appellate court final in many cases in which, before this time, an appeal could be taken to the supreme court. As litigation increases, other measures to relieve the supreme court of some of its work will probably be necessary. Under these conditions it may be desirable to provide for calling other judges to assist when the court falls behind in its work.

The New York constitution provides that: "Whenever and as often as a majority of the judges of the Court of Appeals shall certify to the governor that said court is unable, by reason of the accumulation of causes pending therein, to hear and dispose of the same with reasonable speed, the governor shall designate not more than four justices of the supreme court to serve as associate judges of Court of Appeals".

Two states, Virginia and Ohio, have constitutional provisions permitting a special court to be called. The Virginia provision permits the general assembly to provide from time to time for a special court to try cases on the supreme court docket which the court cannot dispose of with convenient dispatch, or in which the majority of the judges of the supreme court are so situated that it is improper for them to sit. This court must be composed of not less than three or more than five judges of the circuit or city courts, or of judges of the circuit or city courts, together with one or more judges of the supreme court. A satisfactory use of this provision was made under the Virginia constitution of 1869.

In Ohio the general assembly may on application of the supreme court provide for the appointment of a commission of five members to dispose of such part of the supreme court docket as may be assigned to it. These commissioners are appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate. The term of the commissioners cannot exceed two years, and this commission cannot be created oftener than once in ten years.

Constitutional provisions are made in several states for the appointment ad litem of judges in the highest court in case of inability of one or more of the judges of such court to sit. In Georgia, Ar