The Caldwell tribune. [volume] (Caldwell, Idaho Territory [Idaho]) 1883-1928, 1897-07-24

OF course it win b contended that if
the people don't like the constitution
it should be amended. The trouble is
that the courts are won't to surround
constitutions with a halo of perfec.
tion and sacredness that they do not
! possess, forgetting that they were draft
ed by men, and in many instances by
men of very mediocre ability,
4 In response TO that, we ask, what
would be the use OF having Gensti-
tuition if it were not held sacred by the
courtsg The supreme court of Idaho
has registered in heaven solemn oath
to uphlod and defend the Constitution;
shall the judges regard tlaat-eata or
perjure themselves? The Idaho World
(Populist) asks, lis the supreme court
justified in following the strict letter
of the constitution We ask, would
the supreme court be justified in Jig
noring the strict and plain mandates of
the Constitution? The World conclud-
es that the supreme court has made
"serious blunder," because. evidently,
it would not violate the Constitution.
The Montpelier Examiner (Democrat)
disposes of the matter in this wise:
-" When court composed of three men
can at one swoop. through technical
construction, knock out all of our laws
made by legislatures, composed of fifty
or sixty men, its time the constitution
was changed Too much power is del
egated to our courts in such matters,
and a change is needed"
Some one should ask the Examiner
what changes in the Constitution it
would suggest. Possibly it wants a
court of 200 or 800 men, empowered to
listen to controversies but decide moth
ing. Among all the criticisms, those
of the Lewiston Tribune, edited by
Speaker Afford, are beyond COMPARE
son the most acrid. A few extracts will
suffice to show the general tenor of its
attack on the supreme court. 1t terms
the decision "a Public Disaster" and
says: ats consequences, if logically
adopted and pursued will inevitably
result in chaos and 7lihIIISm. g Tine
supreme court has in its decision not
only violated good morals but also
public dsceacy, patriotism, aud the
Constitution itself. The italics are
ours. Proceeding, the choleric journal
says: Taking the decision in its entir-
ity the mind is appalled, at the gravity
of the results that hinge upon the base
Tess fabric erected by the court in its
pursuit of Omnipoteat functions. Be-
ginning with the sordid and selfish eff
fort of few county officials to con-
tinue to collect extravagant fees for
themselves, the supreme court has not
stopped at permitting the officials to
renew their excessive charges on both
public and private substance, but has
thrown down the bars and opened ev-
cry avenue to spoliation and laWless-
ness that either cupidity or culpability
can suggest" There is much more to
the same purpose, amounting to a gem
eral charge Of incompetency and cor
ruptiOn against the supreme court. 1t
is pertinent to inquire whether or not
the higest court in our State should
quietly submit to being thus publicly
and shamefully assailed9
These quotations indicate the nature
of the protest which the Statesman's
invitation appears to have called forth.
In THE TRIBUNE's judgment they are
most unwholesOme and unjust when
rot entirely stupid. We hope to rev.
ert to this subject again when the
Alaskan excitement has somewhat
cooled.