Norwich bulletin., 1912-09-20

cision. It would be an appeal from Philip sober to Philip drunk. And the worst of it is that the thing proposed is what it's name implies-a recall Of course, like an appeal to the highest court, it also establishes the rule for the future. If the supreme courts decision, in such a case, be correct, that is. if the law is in conflict with the constitution, the recall alters the constitution. What, then. becomes of the party's rights? The constitution now guarantees to every person his rights of life. liberty and property. Magma Charta did little more than to establish the principle that one has certain rights, which even the govern ment is bound to respect Webster's S definition of civil liberty makes it include the freedom of the inhabit- ants of state from interference with their natural rights"
 Really. it is not expected that the voters would decide the question of a conflict between the two written in- struments according to any true in depreciation, or according to any rule of law, logic or grammar. He would not be expected to decide what the law was when the case arose, but what he thinks it ought to be. A recall would work like an ex post facto law. It would be case of changing the law after the controversy had arisen. The claimant was right perhaps as the law was, but not as the voter now thinks it ought to have been. h. stead of regular, carefully guarded procedure, based on what the law was and the rights of the parties there- under, there is a submission after the courts have rendered their decision to popular vote. Here is no guaranty and the principle that one has any rights is undermined. All the views of jurists and publicists are ignored Our boasted constitutional guarantee and civil liberty have become a mock cry. Democracy run mad" Presi- dent Taft is right in denouncing the scheme as undermining the very foun- dations of cur system of government
 A plausibility is given to the ar gument for recall of judicial decisions because the legislature and the judi ciary are coordinate departments oi the government The one ought no to overrule the action of the other, it Il said. A court ought not to overrule ( legislature. But the executive is { coordinate department, also. Shal we then have three departments in terpreting, construing and applying tn, law independently? In reply, it il sufficient to answer that the three have different functions. Under oul constitutions, it is for the judiciary to decide all questions of law. Ina is what courts are for. The legisla ture makes laws, the executive en forces them, the judiciary interpreti them. Marshall so decided. while lief ferson scowled. A contrary view woult have sent the ship of state upon tn, rocks in a day.
 Another argument for the recall il that 1t is a new and simple way O. l amending the constitution. But 1t fl equally mischievous in this respect. is too nasty and populistic. Indeed the recall of judicial decisions, de claring statutes unconstitutional, is nothing less than an attack on tn, form of government under written constitutions. The constitution be comes in effect no higher than a law Constitutions deal with the framework of government and are not intended t be readily alterable, like ordinar. statutes, with every change of wint or tide. Of course, if any one pre- fers the English system, under whicl parliament Is supreme as against kinl or constitution, very well. But ar, we ready to undermine the principl, of written constitutions If so, W, may as well fall on our knees, an( with our hands in our mouths and oul mouths in the dust, cry Allah Roose veltl
 COUNTRY BOY. Norwich, Sept. 19, 1912.