Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-01-13
Referendum on the Courts.

Referendum on the Courts
suggestion that Is receiving considera-
bic commentator because Of the belief
that its adoption would discourage the null
hfication Of good laws by the courts Is
that when the supreme court Of q state
voids law enacted by the legislature 81
should act automatically az a referendum
TO the voters Of the question Shall the
decision Of the supreme court be sustained
Under existing conditions the adverse in
terpretation Of the supreme court Is equiv
alent to the veto Of an executive. except
that II If unfortunately final A veto OF an
executive may be overcome when the pop
ular demand is strong but when a SUI
preme court has spoken II not only knocks
out the law. but brands the principle as
bad, thus forbidding the enactment Of an
other law involving IT,
II this lie a government OF the people. IN
which those who make laws must hold
themselves amenable and subservient to
the people for whose government such
laws are made, there is no good reason
why those who interpret such laws should
not be subject to the same limitations. The
proposed system would give to every law
the stability that would come from popu-
lar endorsemcnt.-Linco Star.
What is the next logical step in the
evolution of popular government after
the establishment of an initiative and
referendum for direct legislation? If
the people confess that they cannot
elect a legislature competent and hon
est enough to DO the work Of law
making and constitution-Changin can
they be expected to choose judges
competent and honest enough to ad-
minister Justice?
The argument is here advanced that
judicial decision multiplying law on
the ground of invalidity or unconsti-
tutionality has the same effect as an
unconditional veto and therefore an
appeal should lie to the people to say
whether the courts should be sus-
tanned or reversed In its essence,
however, a court decision knocking
out a law is no different than a court
decision awarding damages or impos-
ing a penalty for crime. In fact, fire.
quently the one is intermingled with
the other in the same decision. To be
logical and avoid difficulties in draw
ing the line, the referendum should
apply to all litigation and the defeated
plaintiff or defendant given a chance
to submit his case to popular vote be-
fore accepting the decree as final.
II the people can decide law suits
better than duly constituted judges,
why, then, maintain all the expensive
machinery of our courts? Why not
abolish courts altogether and let
everyone with a grievance initiate his
own verdict and have it ratified or re-
jected at the polls? If the initiative
and referendum is the correct and
proper thing to check lawmakers and
judges who interpret the laws it might
also just as we'll be extended to the
executive and various administrative
departments. When the governor
grants an unpopular pardon to a pen.
itentiary convict why should it not &C
to referendum and let the people de
eide? When the governor is asked
to establish a cattle quarantine which
may be burdensome to some of the
stock raisers, why should they not
have the right to invoke the Teferen
dunn for their projections The initia'
tive and referendum proceeds on the
| skaor,. 4bot commemorative uOvarp ant
in law-making is a failure and that
the people should govern themselves
7 directly in matters of legislation, bu
complaints against the courts and eX
ecutive are probably as numerous a.
complaints against the legislature. 1
we have at last discovered the panacei
insuring good government we SHOULD
certainly utilize 1t to its fullest extent