argument before those who are ultimately to decide the cause.
That of California often protracts litigation. Any such plan of
division also must increase the risk of the court's taking a
position inconsistent with one which it had previously assumed.
The judges in one division may come to conclusions different from
those reached in the other division; or where the court does not
sit in divisions, a point may be determined by a narrow majority
in one case which in a later one, through the substitution of one
or two judges for those who heard the former, may be ruled the
other way.

The freedom of appeal which is generally conceded to defeated
litigants in this country has been made the subject of severe
criticism. It seems, however, a necessary incident of our
political institutions. They are built upon the foundation of a
profound reverence for the rights of the individual and of the
equality of all before the law. Our Constitutions guaranty every
man against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due
process of law. If we could count on having as judges of our
trial courts none but men of ability, learning and independence,
it might be safe to leave it to them to say what this due process
was. But the tenure of judicial office in most States is too
brief, the pay too meagre, and the mode of appointment too
subject to political influence to give always that assurance that
could be wished either of the independence of the judiciary or of
its representing only what is best in the legal profession.

In England, until recently, there was little or no right of
review in favor of one convicted of crime. But the judges are
appointed for life on ample salaries, and tradition requires that