Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1911-11-01
Ube me l,,|1ofrat.
offlelal Passr ss County and CIV.
:. M. Carr. Henry Bronson. Husert Car
CARR; sRonson ! Cam.
editor. ana sropr'..or&
SUBSCRIPTION price. tyr In advance $50
WEDNESDAY, NOV. 1, 1911.
COURTS AND CONSTITUTIONS.

COURTS AND CONSTITUTIONS.
8l Our good friend. Editor Murphy of
the Telegraph-He rald, still clings to
the assertion that those who oppose
the recall OF Judges are afraid to
trust the people.
S$$ NJ When viewed from only one side
there may be considerable to war
rant the position taken by Mr.. Muir
ply, but the proposed plan has sew
eral sides. 1t has constitutional
side, judicial side and most impor-3
ltant Of all side relating solely to
the protection of the rights of mi
norities. "a ;s#
Those who oppose the recall Of
judges cannot fairly be accused Of
want Of faith in the people. No one
+ y. 5 "
believes that the people can directly
perform ALL the functions Of gov.
ernment. Civilized men do not be-
lieve that a mere majority can be
safely trusted to deal with. many Of
the important questions pertaining
to life, liberty and the pursuit Of
happiness. = Every time a constitu-
ton IS adopted, the people record a
Y lack Of confidence in themselves to
freely legislate upon all questions
81 They recognize the necessity for
certain checks or restraints upon ma
jorities; for the construction Of
shields to protect themselves and
4 their property from the effects. Of
those sudden and strong passions to
which men are exposed
Herbert. Spencer in his celebrate I'd
work on Social Statistics; says: "of
the many political smperstitions, none
is 50 widely dffused as the notion
that majorities are omnipotent."
And why does Spencer call that no.
ton a superstition? Simply because
civilized and enlightened men all the
world over believe in constitutional
4 forms OF government, and every con.
shtutional government is based upou
the theory that mere majorities- are
\ not omnipotent
Every constitution represents the
negative power OF the state. And the
majorityof the people, acting through
their Jaw making and executive Off
\ GERS. represent the positive power Of
the state or government. These two
i powens combined, the one acting,
the other restraining or limiting,
/ I make constitutional governments.
Within the limits OF their con,
stitutional rights the wishes Of the
4. ma r1a 1ority should prevail; and, when.
ever law making representative OF
the people fails to act in accordance
with the wishes Of the majority, he
deprnves the majority OF a constit,,-
#~tional right and should be subject ia
recall. And the same is true of exec
utive officers, such as governors and
\ sheriffs, when they fail to enforce the
laws enacted by the majority. But
when 1t comes to applying the re-
call to judges, that is an entirely dir.
ferent question.
Under our constitutions the courts
are required to establish the boun-
dairy lines between the desires. of the
majority on the one side and the con-
stttutfonal rights of the minority on
the other side, between the positive
and negative powers Of the state. A
law which would give one of these
contending forces the power to de-
prlVe judge Of his office, whenever
his decisions were unsatisfactory,
would be out of line with judicial
thought and the desire for fair play,
which is one Of our most commend
able national characteristics.
Arguing against the unlimited pow.
er of our supreme court Mr.. Murphy
cites the procedure under the Eng
lish constitution. He says:
Moreover no court was given, nor
permitted to arrogate to itself pow
er TO nullify for unconstitutionality or
other cause the acts of parliment
Par lin was and is supreme in
government. In this country the
Supreme Court and not Congress. is
supreme
What Mr.. Murphy says about the
English constitution is quite true,
but there is a good reason for the diff
ference. In Great Britain the House
OF Lords has two functions, the leg
islaive and the judicial. In legis!a-
tive matters it acts in concert with
the Commons, much the same as
our Senate acts with the House of
Representatives; but in it's Judicial
capacity the House OF Lords is the
court OF last resort, the highest court
in the kingdom OF course no inferr.r
count would ATTEMPT to nullify for