Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up freeMorning Appeal
Carson City, Ormsby County, Carson City County, Nevada
What is this article about?
An editorial defends Judge Beatty's 17 years on the Nevada bench as a strong qualification for the Supreme Court, countering Democratic arguments for rotation in office and noting lifetime appointments in other states.
OCR Quality
Full Text
There is but one issue made by the Democracy against Judge Beatty. They argue that he has been for seventeen years upon the Bench of Nevada, and it is time to give some other man a chance. This is one of the strongest arguments in his favor.
Seventeen years of experience, such as Judge Beatty has had, most eminently fits him for the high and responsible duties of the Supreme Bench. Every year but increases that experience, for no man lives, whose legal erudition is so perfect, but that every case he sits upon, adds to his stock of knowledge.
Seventeen years of continued service in such capacity, bespeaks an honest record. It is an idea indigenous to the political soil of a new State, that a long term of service upon the Supreme Bench is inappropriate. Let those who make such an argument, call to mind the fact that in many of the States of the Union, men deemed fit to serve as Judges of the Supreme Court are made life tenants of the place.
What sub-type of article is it?
What themes does it cover?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Story Details
Key Persons
Location
Nevada
Event Date
Seventeen Years
Story Details
The Democracy argues against Judge Beatty's long tenure on the Nevada bench, claiming it's time for a change, but this experience is presented as qualifying him for the Supreme Bench, emphasizing accumulated knowledge and honest record, contrasting with lifetime appointments in other states.