The daily sentinel., 1912-04-04

.
ry or civil officer, would you depriv,
the courts of the power of holding
such a law unconstitutional and Of
protecting the citizen in the free ex.
ercise of the right of suffrage?
If a legislature should enact a law
prohibiting all publication or speech.
es favoring the adoption of the ini-
! tiative, referendum or recall, would
! you deprive the courts of the right to
| hold such a law unconstitutional?
Go through the constitutions of
the various states and you will find
all through them provisions of laws.
Therefore, to abolish the right of the
courts to pass upon the constitution
ality of laws would be in effect to
abolish the constitutions themselves.
Under our form of government and
under our written constitution 1t
must always be the duty of the
courts to pass upon the constitution
ality of laws enacted by legislative
bodies, because they must at all times
recognize the constitution of the state
as the highest law in the state. When
an agency created by the constitution
and deriving its powers from the con-
stitution abuses that power and acts
contrary to the prohibitions and re-
strictions therein laid down, then the
courts must hold such acts void and
enforce the constitution as the high
est law.
We must always remember that
constitutions are the fundamental
laws of the state, adopted by the
people themselves acting directly in |
their sovereign capacity; and that |
laws enacted by a legislative body |
81 m fsnl 8 4.
the people temporarily appointed to |
carry on the government in accord |
ance with the directions and restric- |
tions laid down in the constitution |
and not contrary thereto.
If beneficial laws have been held |
unconstitutional by courts, it is not |
necessarily the fault of the courts. |
but may be the fault of the consti- |
tuition in prohibiting such legislation:
and 1t is possible that in a few in |
stances the courts have misinterpret-
ed the constitutions and have held
some laws unconstitutional which
should not have been so held In
elther case remedy is at hand If
the so-called beneficial law is re-
stricted by the constitution. then the
Judges should most certainly not be
recalled for holding IL so; neither
should their decision be referred; but
the constitution should be amended
by the people in their sovereign ca
pacity so as to remove the restric-
tions against such beneficial legisla-
tion. Even If the courts have misin-
terpreted constitutions, then it would
be far better to amend the consti-
tuition so as to make its meaning
clear, than to recall the Judge who
rendered the decision.
We must always remember that
the constitutions are the legislative
acts of the whole people: that is,
all the people have a right to vote
upon them, and as the majority OF
the people did vote for them they
nave become binding upon all the
people; and when the courts enforce
the constitutions, they are carving
out the will of the people as there
tofore expressed in such constitutions.
II may be that some constitutions are
difficult to amend, and it may be
that constitutions contain restrictions
upon legislation which they should
not contain; nevertheless the consti-
tutlons are the expressed will of the
people, and we must presume thai
they understood and knew what they
We're doing when they adopted them.
TO say that they did not is to saw
that they are incapable of self-gov
ernment. 1t must always be remem-
bere that as the people adopted the
constitutions, so do the people have
the right to alter, change, revise or
amend their constitutions. So it is
no argument in favor of the recall
OF judges because they hold laws
enacted by legislative bodies uncon-
stltuuonal, but rather in favor of the
recall of the legislators who enacted
such laws, or for the adoption of an
easier method of submitting consti-
tutional amendments.
nave confined myself in this
letter simply to state constitutions he
cause that is apparently the scope OF
Mr.. Swain's article. As far as the
general principles are concerned the
same would be true of the United
states constitution. But by reason of
It's different manner of adoption and
the rules of construction governing
IT, II would have to be considered
separately. JOHN n FRY