Newark post., 1912-03-13
kECALL-INrERESTiNG ARTICLE
FROM PUBLIC LEDGER

avpr an unpopular decision Of 4
court declaring an act to be uncon,
StitutionHI--the incomc tax. for in.
stance. This in plain terms is Il
declaration that the obirctors Go
not ike th" Constitution. and are
displeascd that court has per-
formed its plain duty by sayin>
that the Constitution is the limit of
congressional authority. as well as
of their own. But. it is argued. the
Judges are mo&SbackS: they ought
to read the Constitution in the light
Of the times. The reply is very
simple The Constitution is writ
ten. The Judges cannot change its
language and disregard its terms.
In England there is no written
Constitution and the Parliament is
0mnipotent. The English Judges
are not the final arbiters of what
Parliament may do. With us it is
different. Our system is that of
regulated constitutional liberty. If,
then. citizen voter. You like the
English system better than our
own, or desire to Anglicize our in
stitutions. be frank about it, and
say that You do. and that that is
what you intend. but be careful not
10 pretend that you are good
American. and do not. beg Of you.
try to deceive the people by pratt
ing about democracy. 'But.' says
my earnest friend. "this is the
people S government and the peo-
pie ought to rule-the Judges
ought to decide according to the
people s will - Again. | must re-
mind YOU that the Constitution is
the peoples will. It is the very
highest form Of the peoples will /
and. as long as the Constitution
stands unamcnded in constitu-
tional way it is the supreme law Of
The land and must prevail. John
Marshall. the great and good Chief
Justice, whose name stands among
iurist> as high rs that Of Washing
ton and Lincoln among statesmen.
said: "The powers of the Legis-
Iature are defined and limited: and
that those limits may not be mis-
taken or forgotten, the COnstitu-
ton is written. TO what purpose
are powers limited. and to what
purpose is that limitation commit
ted to writing if these limits may.
at any time. be overleaped by
those intended to he restrained 1t
is proposition too plain to be con-
tested that the Constitution con-
trolls any Legislative act repugnant
to it. or that the Legislature may
alter the Constitution by an ordi-
nary act. Between these alterna-
tives there is no middle ground
"But,' argues my friend.
"must we be forever bound by the
wisdom Of the past? Why cannot
we change the Constitution and up
set it when it conflicts with the new
and progressive ideas of the peo-
ple?' Softly. my friend; YOU can
change it, but only in the orderly
way prescribed by the Constitution
itself, My friend then impatientIy
exclaims: ooh, that is too slow.
This age moves I reply: "All
change is not Improvement, and all
movement is not progress. You
cannot change the plan Of a great
building impulsively. and YOU can
not rip out the keystone Of an arch
without danger. nor can you re-
move one-third Of the pillars which
support the superstructure without
peril to the safety of the inmates.
Let us see what you propose to do.
You say that you are not going to
tear the building down. You con-
tend that you are simply going to
change a single compartment and
modernize it. Your mistake is that
you have not studied the substruc-
ture. you fail to perceive that your
attack is upon the foundations.
Look at the architect s plans. That
is the only sensible course. Now.
what do you fnd9 You must adj
NIT. if you are candid, and l as
sumo that you are. that under our
existing system. however it came
about, the judiciary is compelled to
decide whether an act of Congress
or an act Of the State Legislature
is constitutional or not. Either the
Constitution is to stand or the act
is to stand. Which shall it be? Who
is to decide? Not Congress and not
the Legislature. because that would
be to mix up legislative with judi
cial power, and that is against our