00000162 |
Previous | 162 of 498 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
JAY TO LIVINGSTON AND MORRIS. 131
appointed by the Council, should be more ignorant
and inattentive than the examiners, who you are content should still be appointed by that body ; unless
ignorance and inattention be supposed less dangerous
and important in the one than the other.
That clerks should be dependent is agreed on all
hands. On whom ? is the only question. I think not
on the judges.1
Because,
The chancellor, and the judges of the Supreme
Court holding permanent commissions, will be tempted
not only to give those appointments to their children,
brothers, relations, and favourites, but to continue
them in office against the public good. You, I dare say,
know men of too little probity, abilities, and industry
to fill an office well, and yet of sufficient art and attention to avoid such gross misbehaviour as might justify
loud clamours against them.
Besides, men who appoint others to offices, generally have a partiality for them, and are often disposed, on principles of pride as well as interest, to
support them.
By the clerks of court being dependent on the
judges collusion becomes more easy to be practised,
and more difficult to be detected, and instead of
1A letter in the "Calendar of New York Historical MSS.," vol. i., pp. 678,
679, March 24, 1777, contains this reference :
" Mr. Jay is exceedingly unhappy about the 27th paragraph of the form of
Government which puts the appointm*- of the clerks of courts in the power of
the respective Judges. ... He alleges that't is putting in their power to provide for Sons, Brothers, creatures, Dependants, &c—That it will prevent
obtaining Evidence against the most wicked Judge should such be appointed.
Corrupt bargains may be made for appointments to those offices," etc.
| Title | The correspondence and public papers of John Jay - 1 |
| Creator | Jay, John |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000162 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | JAY TO LIVINGSTON AND MORRIS. 131 appointed by the Council, should be more ignorant and inattentive than the examiners, who you are content should still be appointed by that body ; unless ignorance and inattention be supposed less dangerous and important in the one than the other. That clerks should be dependent is agreed on all hands. On whom ? is the only question. I think not on the judges.1 Because, The chancellor, and the judges of the Supreme Court holding permanent commissions, will be tempted not only to give those appointments to their children, brothers, relations, and favourites, but to continue them in office against the public good. You, I dare say, know men of too little probity, abilities, and industry to fill an office well, and yet of sufficient art and attention to avoid such gross misbehaviour as might justify loud clamours against them. Besides, men who appoint others to offices, generally have a partiality for them, and are often disposed, on principles of pride as well as interest, to support them. By the clerks of court being dependent on the judges collusion becomes more easy to be practised, and more difficult to be detected, and instead of 1A letter in the "Calendar of New York Historical MSS.," vol. i., pp. 678, 679, March 24, 1777, contains this reference : " Mr. Jay is exceedingly unhappy about the 27th paragraph of the form of Government which puts the appointm*- of the clerks of courts in the power of the respective Judges. ... He alleges that't is putting in their power to provide for Sons, Brothers, creatures, Dependants, &c—That it will prevent obtaining Evidence against the most wicked Judge should such be appointed. Corrupt bargains may be made for appointments to those offices," etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
