The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-08-18
TAFT AND THE RECALL OF
 JUDGES.

It is rumored upon good authority that President Taft will veto the | statehood bill for Arizona and New | Mexico upon the ground that the Ari- to recall judges from office. It is ad- mitted that had Arizona not made this recall provision a part of it's con- stltution, that President Taft would have signed the enabling act, thus l making it a state. The moment, | however. that President Taft had done this, and Arizona had compiled with the provisions of the enabling act, as | sovereign state, it could turn right around and amend its state constitu- recall of judges from office; and all the force of the federal government would be powerless to prevent it. In this connection, it will be again remembered that the enabling act un- der which Oklahoma was. admitted, specifically provided that the state capital should remain at Guthrie un- til 1915. Yet recently the people of Oklahoma voted to locate the capi- tai at Oklahoma City, and forthwith the courts by the Guthrie people, and the courts decided that the people of Okls homa had a right to determine where their capital city should be. And this decision has not been Ques- tioned.
 
 admitted, then recall provision as applied to the Judiciary could be vot- ed into the state constitution at any subsequent time. We, therefore, do not see what real force Taft veto is going to have upon this matter, when it is so clearly out of harmony with the express wishes of the people of Arizona. If they are determined to promulgate the principles of recall ing their judges, all President Taft | 1> a~ A A-s- mission to the union until such time as it saw fit to get in under the sub- .erfuge that they have no recall pro- vision in their constitution. Once in, however. Arizonians could do as they chose in this matter Why then keep them out for doing something which they are likely to do in any event if they are admitted to the union of states ?
 There has been a large amount of hysterical comment upon this propo- sal to permit the recall of judges. It must be clear to anybody who has read Sena tor Owens splendid address to the Senate on the right of election and recall of federal judges, that this proposal is not nearly as radical nor To-day many of the states elect their judges, and all our states and many nations do exercise the right to recall their judges.
 While there is much to say both for and against the direct popular re- call of judges, there is no doubt that our judiciary to-day is sadly in need of some restrictive force which will tend to make it more subservient, not to the popular will, but to the prerog- atives of our three coordinate branches of government.
 Our judiciary has undertaken to invade the legislative functions of Congress by judicial interpretations; even by judicial legislation. They have overridden the rights of state law in a. similar manner. They have become tyrannical in contempt cases, denying trial by jury in injunction cases. This nation to-day is menaced more by an uncontrolled Judiciary, than the judiciary is menaced by any recall provision that may be insert ed in any constitution of any state or nation.-New Haven Union.