The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1896-10-24
Not Above Criticism.

Gov. Altgeld, of Illinois. addressed large
meeting of German-Americans in New York
city. last Saturday night and it was an able
defense of his own acts during the Chicago
riots two years ago, which called down upon
him the tern Anarchist by railroad cor
porations, the monopolistic press and those
who believe in government by injunction.
Gov. Altgeld's speech was complete VIM
dication of his course by all who believe this
is government of free an Independent states,
a government OF the people, by the people,
for the people
ATTACKING THE SUPREME COURT.
In reply to the criticism that the Demo-
cratic platform attacked the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States, Gov.
Altgeld made exhaustive answer, convincing
TO all but Plutocrats.
In part he said:
This criticism of the Supreme Court is de-
nounced as subversive of order and destructive
of the respect that is due that tribunal. As
tonishing as it may appear, men formerly
connected with the Democratic party and men
connected with the Republican party insist
that courts are of sacred character and above
the reach of criticism. My friends, | give
way to no man in admiration for American
institutions. My life has been spent in trying
to protect the flag of my country and trying
to advance the educational institutions OF the
country, and as an officer of the court, serv-
ing in the capacity of prosecutor and for iye
years as a Judge of the Superior Court of
Chicago, and after this experience at the bar
and on the bench, | say to my countrymen
that there cannot be in republic any insti-
tuition exempt from criticism, and that when
any institution is permitted to assume that at
titude it will destroy republican government.
The judicial branch of the government is
Just as much subject to the criticism of the
American people as are the legislative or
executive branches, and it needs this criti-
cism more than does either of the other two
branches, because, by reason OF frequent
changes, the people can make their will felt
in the legislative and executive offices, but
the Federal Judges are not appointed by
the people and are not responsible to them, and
for all practical purposes cannot be reached
except by the moral sentiment and sense of
Justice created in the public mind by free
criticism. The Judges of our Federal courts
are as honest as other men and no more so.
They have the same passions and prejudices
that other men have, and are just as liable to
make mistakes and to move in the wrong d.
rection as other men are, and the safety of
the Republic not only permits, but actually
requires, that the action of the courts should
be honestly and thoroughly scanned and be
freely criticised, not with view of arousing
resistance to the decision of the court, but for
the purpose of forcing the court in the end to
see its error and to correct it.
The mere fact that the Supreme Court has all
through its career repeatedly reversed its own
decisions show its fallability. Everybody ad-
mits that the decision of a court is binding in
the case in which it was rendered, and until
it is reversed constitutes precedent to indi-
cate how the court will decide the same ques-
ton again, but this fact does not prevent men
from doing wha: they can to get the court to
reverse its decision. Nor does the decision
of the Supreme Court in any case become
rule of political action the correctness of
which the voter dare not question.
The Supreme Court cannot by mere deci-
sion upon a constitutional question rob the
people of the powers of selfgovernment or
prevent the American people from deciding
for themselves, through the properly consti-
tuted machinery, whether they will accept
the decision of the Supreme Court as being
final or whether they will refuse to accept it
as a rule of action. As Mr.. Lincoln said:
at does not necessarily become rule of
political action" The people have not parted
with their power of self-government in favor
of either legislative, executive or the judicial
branch of the Government. For the benefit
of so-called Democrats who have criticised
this plank in the platform, | would recall
the language of Jefferson already quoted, and
will add the following: In 1900 Mr.. Jeffer-
son wrote to friend as follows: "You seem
to consider the Judges as the ultimate arbi-
tiers of all constitutional questions. A very
dangerous doctrine, indeed, and one which
would place us under the despotism of an
oligarchy. Our Judges are as honest as other
men and not more so. They have with others
the same passions for party, for power, and
the privilege of their corps and their power is
the more dangerous, as they are in office for
life and not responsible as the other function
aries are to the elective control. The Con-
stitution has erected no such tribunal, know
ing that to whatever hands con6ded, with the
corruption of time and of party its members
would become despots. The Constitution has
more wisely made all the departments CO.
equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
would likewise remind you of the language
of Andrew jackson. After the Supreme
Court had held the National Bank bill to be
constitutional in all parts, he refused to be
bound by that decision, and asserted that he,
as Presidant, would not be bound to hold the
national bank to be constitutional, even though
the Supreme Court had decided IT to be SO.
He accepted the doctrine OF Mr.. jefferson,
and acted upon it under his official oath in
vetoing charter for the national bank, and
would remind the Republicans who are
making this criticism Of the attitude of Lin
coin toward the Supreme Court when discuss
ing the bred Scott decision in the Lincoln
and Douglass debate, when, in referring to
that decision, he said:
1--WE do oppose that decision as a political
rule which shall be binding on voter TO vote
for nobody who thinks it wrong; which shall
be binding on the members Of Congress or the
President to favor no measure that does not
actually concnr with the principles Of that