The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-03-21

for privilege, a bulwark unjuetly pro-
tecting special interests against the
rights of the people as a whole. This
doctrine is to me a dreadful doctrine;
for its effect Is, and can only be, to
make the courts the shield OF priv
ilege against popular rights. Natural
~, every uphoider and beneficiary OF
crooked privilege loudly appLauds the
doctrine. It Is behind the shield of
that doctrine that crooked clauses
creep into laws, that men OF wealth
and power control legislation. The
men of wealth who praise this doc
tr1ne, this theory, would do well to
remember that to its adoption by the
courts is due the distrus& so many OF
our wage-workers now feel for the
courts. l deny that that theory has
worked SO well that we should con-
tinue it. l most earnestly urge that
the evils and abuses it has produced
cry aloud for remedy; and the only
remedy is in fact to restore the power
to govern directly to the people, and
to make the public servant directly
responsible to the whole people-and
to no part of them. to no ~class" of
them.
WelI-meaning, short-s1ghted persons
AdfS ASIQ w InelI AE71Q6 III uOETOA at
my proposal to allow the people them
selves to construe the constitution
which they themselves made. Yet
this is precisely what the Association
of the Bar of the City of New York
proposed to do in the concurrent reso-
luton which was introduced at their
request into our legislature on jan
uary 16 last, proposing to amend the
hU ra2d-
ing as follows: Nothing contained in
this constitution shall be construed to
limit the powers of the legislature to
enact laws" such as the workmen's
compensation act. In other words.
the New York Bar association Is pro-
posing to appeal to the people to
construe the constitution in such
way as will directly reverse the court.
They are proposing to appeal from
the highest court of the state to the
people. That is just what l propose
to do; the difference is only one OF
method, not of purpose; my method
will give better results, and Will give
them more quickly.
Remember, l am not discussing the
recall of judges-although | wish 1t
distinctly understood that the recall
Is d n0I0 pieces "a AdCAlACAJ ~ e0AO
the place of the unworkable impeach-
ment which Mr.. Taft in effect de-
tends, and that if the days of May
nard ever came back again in the
state of New York l should favor it.
I have no wish to come to it; but our
opponents, when they object to all ef-
forts to secure real justice from the
courts, are Strengthening the hands
{ 1e n ho roCaI1
/ stand on the Columbus speech.
The principles there asserted are not
new, but / believe that they are neces-
sary to the maintenance of free Dem
ocratic government. The part of my
speech in which 1 advocated the right
of the people to be the final arbiters
of what is due process of law in the
case of statutes enacted for the gen.
eral welfare will ultimately. am con-
fident. be recognized as giving
strength and support to the courts In
stead of being revolutionary and sub
versive The courts today owe the
country no greater or clearer duty
than to keep their hands on such
statutes when they have any reason
ably permissible relation to the pub
lie good In the past the courts have
often failed to perform this duty, and
their failure is the chief cause OF
whatever dissatisfaction there is with
the working of our judicial system.
One who seeks to prevent the 1r-
reyocabIe commission of such mis-
takes in the future may justly claim
to be regarded as aiming to preserve
and not to destroy the independence
and power of the judiciary.
NV remedy is not the result of
library study of constitutional law,
but of actual and long-continued ex-
perience in the use of governmental
mower to redress social and Industrial
evils. When, as the result Of years
of education and debate, a majority
of the people have decided upon
remedy for an evil from which they
suffer and have chosen legislature
and executive pledged to embody that
remedy In law, and the law has been
finally passed and approved, l regard
it as monstrous that bench OF
Judges shall then say to the people:
.sYou must begin all over again First
amend your constitution (Which will
take four years.; second, secure the
massage of a new law (Which will
take two years more); third, carry
that new law over the weary course
of litigation (which will take NO hu-
man being knows how iong); fourth,
submit the whole matter over again
70 the very same judges who have
rendered the decision to which you
object. Then, If your patience hoids
ont and you finally prevail. the will
of the majority of the people may
have its way" Such a system is not
popular government, but a mere