for general deductions.

1 The charts may not be precise in every detail, but should be sufficiently accurate

the organization of that court. Many of the judges set down as apDiagram 6 shows the same facts for the Municipal Court judges since

pointed were subsequently elected.1

Public offices
which exclude
opportunity for
private practice

S

Office of public attorney (police prosecutor, city solicitor, prosecuting attorney,
assistant prosecuting attorney, law director)

Judicial office other than municipal bench (police judge, justice of peace,
Common Pleas)

Clerical office (bailiff, clerk)

Diagram 6.-The legal career of judges of the Municipal Court, 1911 to the present, with respect to their ages

and their public and private services

Turning to Diagram 5, it is at once apparent that with the election of 1912 a much younger group of men began to appear on the bench. A ruler laid across the chart along the line of 40 years of age shows only two judges beginning their service under that age before 1912, and eight judges after 1912. Similarly a line drawn across 45 years of age shows only nine out of 20 before 1912 and 15 out of 16 after that date. A comparison is given in Table 7.

TABLE 7.—AGE ON ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT,
COMMON PLEAS COURT

Another noticeable difference is the quality of the experience brought to the bench by the judges before 1912 compared with the later group. The shaded areas in Diagram 5 represent experience which necessarily or largely excluded private practice, and conversely, the white areas represent opportunity for such practice. Table 8 summarizes the

TABLE 8.-OPPORTUNITY FOR PRIVATE PRACTICE,
COMMON PLEAS COURT

amount of opportunity for private practice. Before 1912 most of the judges were apparently well seasoned in the private practice of the law, whereas after that date the majority had been trained chiefly in the office of inferior judge or prosecutor. Since the difficulties of trial and

consequences of decisions and rulings can be best appreciated by the man who has "been through the mill," it is not surprising that the Cleveland bar displays no little impatience toward the bench. Table 9 indicates the comparative inexperience of the newer judges.

TABLE 9.-TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, COMMON
PLEAS COURT

The Municipal Court has been in existence for nine years only, under practically one method of selecting its judges, so that Diagram 6 does not contain much material upon which conclusions may be based. Many members of the bar, however, are of the opinion that there has been progressive deterioration in the quality of judges first reaching that bench by the election method.

The present personnel of the Common Pleas bench includes seven Democrats and five Republicans; the Municipal Court, six Democrats and four Republicans. Since Diagrams 5 and 6 contain only the dates of first elections and appointments, they are not well adapted for judging whether a non-partisan bench has been secured. Since 1911 the elections of judges have resulted as follows:

The Municipal Court has probably been a true non-partisan institution from the beginning. The predominance of Democrats elected to this

bench is due somewhat to the vacancies which occurred during Governor Cox's two terms as governor. There were nine vacancies before 1921, eight of which were filled by Governor Cox with Democrats, some of whom replaced several Republicans. The strong tendency on the part of the voters to reëlect men already on the Municipal bench secured the election for most of these appointees.

Elections to the Common Pleas bench have shown a growing tendency to become non-partisan, despite the fact that there is now somewhat of a reaction toward party sponsorship.1

THE UNDERLYING CAUSE FOR DISSATISFACTION

The changes in election machinery were in large part the result of the progressive wave which swept the country in the first decade of the century. They represent a revulsion against intolerable political conditions then flourishing, and it was impossible to foresee all the effects of the steps when proposed by the new leadership. Cleveland has now had ten years' experience of the wide-open method of selection, and although few would care to return to the bossed party conventions, it is safe to say there is scarcely a man in Cleveland able to weigh the qualifications for the bench who does not deplore present tendencies and fear them.

It is not altogether a question of comparing the intrinsic ability and integrity of the new judges with the old. Such a comparison might not be wholly unfavorable to some of the younger judges. Nor does the reason lie entirely in the fact that the judges are coming to the bench younger and less experienced than formerly, and that a few are markedly unsuited for judicial careers. These are symptomatic conditions only. Most serious is the present cheapening of the judicial office, so that neither the bar, the press, nor the judicial incumbents themselves any longer respect it. Young lawyers who would have viewed the bench

1 See issue of the Cleveland Press, October 30, 1920, for an advertisement by the Republican Executive Committee consisting of a "slate" of judges captioned "Republican Judicial Candidates." The Press has been one of the foremost proponents of the non-partisan election of judges.

See Mr. Tannehill's appeal to the progressive and Roosevelt vote in introducing the direct primary amendment at the Constitutional Convention, Ohio C. C., 1912, Proceedings and Debates, p. 1239.

"The chief cause of the frequent failure of representative government lies in the corrupt, boss-controlled, drunken, debauched, and often hysterical nominating convention," says the sponsor for the direct primary provision, ibid., p. 1239.