Perth Amboy evening news., 1912-03-09

conclusions The popular 1uHuiHc lac
been to take awAy the power from the
fudge and to give 1t all to tbs jury, and
tnis ha4 NOT been for the public good
In the enforcement OF the criminal law
Hueh defects as / have described ars
completely within the control Of the
legislatures Of the state and CONGRESS
and / am glad to say that the move
ment for reform has been accelerated
By action of the state and national bar
associations, and we may look for De
clded progress In the near future.
But these humdrum defects and their
tedious remedies are not Of the spec
tacular character to call for political
discussion or to attract effort from
politicians in the passage OF remedial
legislation. The formidable attack upon
our Judiciary now ia that the judges do.
not respond sufficiently to popular opfn
ion: It is said that courts are interpos-
Ing their obstructive power to the en-
forcement Of legislation looking to the
relief Of the oppressed by declaring
laws Unconstitutional and by so called
judicial legislation In interpreting Into
statutes words not intended by the
legislature. | do not intend to discuss
these charges. although II reduced to
specific cases 1t would be easy to show
many OF them to be ~unfounded. For
the purposes Of this discussion l may
admit that courts have erred in this
regard, have unduly b~roadened on
stftutional restrictions In order to in
validate useful statutes or have given
such statutes a wrong construction
How Is 1t proposed to remedy these
wrongs? In one OF two ways-either
by the judicial recall or by the recall
Of Judicial decisions. Let US examine
these remedies separately.
Judicial Rsosli.
In the remedy by judicial recall it
is proposed to provide by law that
whenever q Judge has SO discharged
his duties a. to induce a certain per
centage OF the electorate to deem 1t
wise to remove him and that per
centage sign q petition asking his re
call an election shall take place In
which the incumbent shall stand
against other candidates, and II he
does not secure a plurality of votes
he is ipso facto removed. / have point
ed out that under our form Of govern
ment and constitution many OF the H.
sues arising before our courts are In
effect issues between the state and the
Individual, between the majority and
the minority, cases In which the popu-
lar interest might be greatly excited to
secure a favorable judgment. By this
system the question whether the Judge
is to be removed or not is to be left tf
that majority that may be greatly
aroused to secure from him a tudg
ment favorable to them. Could a sys-
tenn be devised better adapted to de
prive the judiciary of that independ.
ence without which the liberty and
other rights Of the individual cannot
be maintained against the government
and the majority
But 1t is said we may have corrupt
judges. How are we going to get rid
OF them7 They car be ~impeached I'M
der our present system. But that Is
said to be too cumbersome. Well
amend the procedure OF impeachment
Create a tribunal for removal OF judges
for cause. Give them an opportunity
to be heard. and by an impartial til
bunal, but do not create q system BY
which, In the heat of disappointment
over a lost cause. the defeated lit
gants are to decide without further
hearing or knowledge whether the
Judge who decides against them is to
continue In Office. 1t would be hard
to devise a more unjust and ineffective
Of purifying the Judiciary or
one less likely to promote courage Of
honest conviction.
Recall Of Decisions.
Let us examine the other method
proposed for the reform OF the Judi
ciary. That is a recall of decisions
BY this method when q supreme court
has found a lew intended to secure
public benefit to be invalid because II
infrInges some constitutional limita.
ton the decision Is to be submitted to
a vote of the qualified electors. and II
a majority of them differ with the
court and reverse the decision the Law
Is to be regarded and enforced as valid
and constitutional.
This Is a remarkable suggestion and
one which is SO contrary to anything
in government heretofore proposed
that 1t is hard to give 1t the serious
consideration which 1t deserves be
cause of Its advocates and of the CON
ditions under which 1t is advanced.
What the court decides Is that the
enacted Law violates The fundamental
law and Is beyond the power OF the
legislature to enact. But when this
Issue Is presented to the electorate
what will be the question uppermost
In the minds of most Of them and
forced upon them by the advocates Of
the laN7 VIII It no necessarily be
whether the law Is on Its merits a
good Law rather than whether it con-
ficts with the constitution The In
depreciation of the constitution and
the operation OF q Law to violate some
limitation Of that instrument are often
nice questions to be settled by judi
cial reasoning and farsighted expert
ence which are not TO be expected Of
the electorate Or welcomed by It. Il
the issue is transferred TO them the
simple question will be OF the approval
or disapprovaI OF the law. What this
recall Of decisions WITH then amount to
Ii applied to constitutional questions II
~ kb.ux AT - "a RECOMMENDATION sf &ha