When Colonel Roosevelt said in his famous speech before the Ohio Constitutional Convention at Columbus, speaking of the recall of judges, that he favored such a drastic method of removal of judges as was embodied in the Massachusetts Constitution, many people opened their eyes with amazement. Few, of course, had heard of removal by address, and fewer still, if they had heard of it, understood what was meant. This is quite natural, as no case of removal by address has taken place in Massachusetts since 1882.
Constitutions are generally supposed to be dull things and few people, I think, read them even in these times when it is so common to attack their provisions. The fact remains, however, that in the old Bay State there exists a most effective and unusually liberal system for the speedy removal of judges.
Among the States of the Union that provide for removal by address, the greater number stipulate that a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate is necessary in order to remove the judge; in Massachusetts a bare majority vote of each House is sufficient. In most States the cause of the proposed removal of a judge must be stated; notice must also be served on the accused, and a hearing given; but under the requirements of the Massachusetts Constitution no reason need be assigned and no hearing is necessary.
Daniel Webster, speaking of this subject before the Convention of 1820, assumed that removal could take place without trial or accusation. He said: "If the judges, in fact, hold their office only so long as the Legislature sees fit, then it is vain and illusory to say that the judges are independent men incapable of being influenced by hope or by fear; but the tenure of their office is not independent. The general theory and principle of the Government is broken in upon by giving the Legislature this power. The depart-
