Martinsburg statesman-democrat. [volume] (Martinsburg, W. Va.) 1906-1921, 1911-10-27
Declares for the Recall.

vi Judges, ana lellS Ills Reasons
Written for the Cleveland (Ohio)
Press by Judge r. NJ. Wanamaker, of
the common pleas court, Akron, Ohio.
Every reason for the recall of public
officers in general is applicable to
Judges most OF all. Here is the reason;
Our government is supposed to be
enc of "checks and balances" The
lawmakers are check on the executive
for they may define his duties and they
held the purse strings. The executive
is cheek on the lawmakers, for he
has the veto power. The court may
enjoin or mandamus the executive,
and may declare the work of the law
makers null and void. But how about
the judges? Where AMI what check
has the legislative or executive branch
on them except the obsolete and in
effective right Of impeachment?
If it is proper for the people-who
are the nation-to check, restrain and
recall the lesser branches of govern
they wholesomely, periodically and
effectively control the judges, since the
courts have now seen lit to assert and
exercise supreme power?
The greater The power the more need
for proper and effective control rnere
is more need for bake on ali auto
mobile than on a wheelbarrow.
| THE ONE STOCK ARGUMENT AGAINST
THE RECALL OF JUDGES.
The stock argument against the re-
| call Of judges is that the independence
of the courts will be destroyed. Where
is there authority for this exaggerated
notion Of an independent judiciary?
Where is there any statutory or con-
stitutional law, sound reason or poit-
cal Go trlne, tending to establish the
courts supreme to all reasonable con-
troll in matters of vital public policy?
! III 1857, when our constitution was
written, no English court had for 10
years held any act of parliament void.
The courts of England and of the
| American colonies had confined them
selves to the Interpretation of the law
as made. They had not presumed to
make law nor TO nullIfy law.
SO, when IL the constitution was
written "lhe judicial power of the
United States shall be vested in one
supreme court and such other courts
as congress may from time to time or
dain and establish" the fathers meant
such judicial power as then existed :
that Is, the Interpretation of laws as
written and its application to facts
proven. But even this right was
limited-"the supreme court shall have
jurisdiction with such exception and
under such regulations as congress
snail make"
THECoNSrITUTIoN DID NOT ESTABLISH
SANCTITY OF JUDGES
And the constitution Gid not con-
template any sanctlty IN judges, for it
is provided that judges of the federal
courts shall hold their office during
good behavior Which is the same as
saying that ajudge shall be removed
for good and sufficient cause Ana if
the means provided, which is impeach-
ment, has proven insufficient, should
not new kmeans be had? Ifnol 1t is
i,nTeachments and not the removal of
Judges THAT we aIe making sacred
thing.
This then dispOses ofthe exsg gerated
idea that courts and judges were ever
intended. TO be absolutely Independent.
/ is.said that the recall is too radical
a change. Consider how radical was
our whole government when IL was
pla nned and made! 1t was revolution
arv, andi founded upon seven years
war! a war ofthe people against kings
and courts and parliameus! A thing
is radical only before it has become The
es taolished order Of things
RECALL TO ALL INTENrs IN soMENEw
ENGLAND STATES.