Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1912-03-12

tunconstitutional and by so-called judi
cial legislation in interpreting into
statutes words not intended by the
legislature" $
Such charges, If reduced to specific
|! instances, the president thought could
| be shown to- be unfounded for the
most part, but for the purpose OF his
discussion he might admit that courts
had erred in that regard, had unduly
4 broadened constitutional restrictions
to invalidate useful statutes or had
given to statutes wrong construction.
Indeed, I do not hesitate to say that |
/, do not concur in the reasoning of GER
tain courts Of last resort as to the
constitutional validity of certain social
reform statutes, and am very anxious
that the remedies proposed in those
statutes should be given effective oper
ation," continued the president.
Takes Up the Recall.
The president then took up the pro-
posed remedies, first the recall of
Judges and later the recall Of judicial
decisions. Than the recall Of judges,
he declared. there could not be sys.
tenn better adapted to deprive the
judiciary of that independence with.
out which the liberty and other rights
of the individual cannot be maintained
against the government and the ma,
jority." ss
II the impeachment were too cum
bersome a proceeding to apply to cor
rupt Judges, he proposed tribunal
for the removal Of judges for cause.
OF the recall of judicial decision,
President Taft said in part:
"This is remarkable suggestion,
and one which is so contrary to any
thing in government heretofore pro-
posed that it is hard to give 1t the
serious consideration which it de-
serves because Of its advocates and Of
| the conditions under which it was adj
vanced.
What this recall of decision will
amount to If applied to constitutional
questions is that there will be sns-
pension of the constitution to enable
temporary majority of the electorate
to enforce a popular but invalid act"
President Taft pointed out that the
right Of habeas corpus might be af'
fected, or that of rich corporation
seeking privileges in the development
Of a state-and he cited Alaska
might use such condition to advan-
tage. ...
Destroys All Consistency.
"A most serious objection to the
recall of decisions is that 1t destroys
all probability of consistency in con-
stitutional Interpretation. The major
ity which sustains one law is not the
majority which comes to consider an
other, and the obligation of consisten-
cy of popular decision is one which
would sit most lightly on each recur-
ring electorate and the operation Of
the system would result in suspension
of application of constitutional guar.
antee according to popular whim.~
I'VE would have then system OF
suspending the constitution to meet
special instances. But the main argu-
ment used to sustain such a popular
review of judicial decisions is that II
the people are competent to establish
a constitution they are competent to
interpret it and that his recall Of de-
cisions is nothing but the exercise OF
the power Of Interpretation.
A FaIacious Argument.
This is clearly a fallacious argu-
ment The approval of general prin-
ciples in constitution on one hand
and the Interpretation of statute and
consideration Of its probable operation
in particular case and it's possible
infringement of a general principle
on the other hand, are very d1ferent
things.
"The one is simple, the latter COM
pick: and the latter, when submitted
to a popular vote, as already pointed
out, is much more likely to be turned
into an issue of general approval or
disapproval of the act on its merits for
the special purpose Of its enactment
than upon its violation of the consti-
tuition. Moreover, popular majority
does not adopt constitution, or any
principle Of it, or amend it's terms, un-
til after it has been adopted by con.
stitutional convention or legislature
and the final adoption is, and ought to
be, surrounded with such checks and
delays as to secure deliberation
Can it bet that the power Of tenn
porary majority OF the electorate by a
single popular vote to do away with
rights secured to individuals which
! have been inviolable for seven hundred
years since the days OF the Magma
Charta, approves itself to those who
! love liberty and who hold dear It's sac
red guarantees?
; would we not in giving such pow
erful effect to the momentary impulse
Of majority of an electorate, prepare
the way for the possible exercise or
the greatest tyranny?
FINALLY, I ask what is~the necessity
for such crude revolutionary. fitful
and unstable way of reversing Judicial
constructions of the constitution. Why
| if the construction is wrong can 1t not
be righted by constitutional amend
ment?
! -. Dishonesty is Assumd.
IAN answer made to this is that the
same Judges would construe the
amendment and defeat the popular
will as in the first instance. This as
sumes dishonesty and a gross VIOLA
ton of their oath of duty on the part
of the judges, hypothesis utterly un-
itenable. ... .s-.
II agree that we are making pro-
gress and ought to make progress in
kn1 f0v1 tn