New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1911-08-16
An INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

President Taft's powerful veto mes
sage dealing with the Arizona constltu-
ton will be an important influence in
preserving to this country an indepen-
dent judiciary; and that is certainly its
purpose. Mr.. Taft looks far beyond the
Arizona situation, with regard to which
it might be said, as indeed it has often
gained through preventing the adoption
of the constitution containing the recall
provision affecting the judiciary, since
Arizona, having been admitted with the
obnoxious feature of that provision
stricken out, might almost Immediately
amend its constitution so as TO provide
for the recall of judges. But Mr.. Taft
sees the opportunity and duty of throw
ing his influence forcibly against the
spread of the idea of recalling judges.
If he had signed the bill passed by Con-
gress, which required Of Arizona nothing
more than q reconsideration of the judi
cial recall, it would plausibly have been
said that the President had had an op-
portunity to block the recall and had
declined to do so, and, consequently, that
he at least regarded it as no serious
menace to American institutions. And
| that Interpretation of his action would
have contributed to the spread Of the
! judicial recall elsewhere than in Ari-
IONA.
But Mr.. Taft makes it perfectly clear
IL this message that he does regard the
Arizona nostrum as serious menace TO
American institutions, and his temperate
| and soberly reasoned expressions upon
| the danger to the independence Of the
Judiciary can hardly fail to carry con-
viction TO the public mind. The recall
of the judiciary does indeed strike at the
basis of our institutions. 1t is an in
direct device for undermining the place
which the constitution holds in the
American system of government. 10
preserve the vitality Of the constitution
there is imperative need Of an indepen-
dent judiciary. that will not hesitate to
run counter TO the passion of the hour
and declare the will of the majority for
the moment as reflected in legislation
contrary TO the restrictions of the fun
damental law Of the land. With this
function of the courts there has been
great impatience in this era Of weaken
ing authority, Of restless experiment and
Of dangerous leadership. The spectacle
Of three or four judges, or it may be one
judge, multiplying the law Of a state"
and "thwarting the will of the people"
by declaring some act unconstitutional
may cause discomfort with judges and
with the constitution as well. We are
far from saying that some of the crit
icism Of judges has not been we'll
founded, but the cure for individual
faults is not TO institute "legalized ter
rorism" Of the entire bench
With the function of the courts of
combining innovations within the restric-
tons of the fundamental law the i'm
patience has been livellest in the West,
and IL is natural that this device for
reducing the courts. and along with
them the constitution, to a subordinate
role in the government, which finds eX-
preston in the Arizona constitution, and
which is also before the people Of Cali
fornia for consideration. should be
brought forward where the Impotence
has been most felt. If the recall is
adopted a plant judiciary will surely
occupy the bench and will offer few
obstacles TO the hasty schemes of get
perfect-quick "reformers." There are
other objections 10 the recall, but the
great objection is that it endangers The
place Of the constitution in our system
Of government, by making the judges
who interpret the constitution imme-
diately subject TO the will of the major
ITS, upon which the constitution is sup
posed to act as a check.