Norwich bulletin., 1912-09-20
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Recall of JudieiaI Decisions.

MT. Editor: As reported in The Bulletin, at a recent meeting of third party adherents in Norwich, a speaker from California soberly advocated the Rooseveltian plank for the recall of judicial decisions Such views seem to call for ridicule rather than reply. But some persons may fail to under stand their revolutionary character and be misled, while others are always ready to believe in any new govern mental scheme loudly proclaimed un- less its mischievous nature is shown as often as the scheme is put for ward.
 The regulation argument in favor of the recall is this: Are you afraid to trust the plain people, as Lincoln called them? Is rot this a govern ment of for, and by the people? Let us see how weighty this argument about the common people is and where it leads and lands us. Safe guards are now thrown around all court proceedings. Jurors, for exam pie, are not chosen at random, but are selected by town and county of- ficials, because of their fitness for the office. Again. when a jury is impan- eled for the trial of any case they are sworn to try the same according to the law and the evidence before them. All evidence submitted to them is taken under the solemnity of an oath and Is tested by cross examination. The jurors are not to act upon or be influenced by prejudice, preconceived notions, relationship, hearssy evidence or the solicitations or opinions of out siders. Indeed, they are forbidden to converse about the case with any one not of their number on pain of pun ishment for contempt. Once more, they are instructed by 8 judge as to the law, it's meaning and application.
 Now, is' all this a mistake? Are these safeguards, designed to secure impartial justice tested and approved by the experience of hundreds if not thousands of years, to be cast aside as outworn garments? Shall we over turn the present system, and submit law cases for determination to pop ular vote, or to jurors selected by lot, serving without oath, Investigating for themselves or not at all, acting on hearsay evidence, subject to the i'm portunity of interested parties and pol iticians, influenced by popular clamor or more doubtful persuasions? Is this what Is called trusting the plain peo- pie?
 But it will be said that this is not what it is proposed to do. True, and the thing proposed, though along the same line, is much worse than this. The recall Is to apply Cat least at firsD simply to a decision of the supreme court of the state adjudging a statute law unconstitutional. Let us see first just what the supreme court decides in such a case. Simply this, whether the law, called a statute, is consistent with the higher law. called a consti- tution. If not, the former must give way. The court which renders such a decision Is composed of bench of judges of long experience, selected be- cause of their character, fitness and ability, and appointed in this state on nomination of the governor and con- firmation of the general assembly. They are experts of experts in judi cial matters. They are sworn to do justice. Their decisions are reached after the fullest consideration and con- ference among themselves, and are written, with the reasons therefor, with the greatest care.
 It is seriously proposed to submit such 8 decision to recall by vote of the electors at large in public meet ing, With equal reason, one might set a day laborer to run a bank or call in the grocer te prescribe for a typhoid patient, Such recall would be an insult to the bench rendering the de-