The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1912-03-08


should be at least of such length |
that the judges reelection should |
not depend upon his decision of some !
particular case of question, but upon |
his general worthiness to be Judge. |
The argument for the recall as |
sumes that judges are only agents OF
the majority, and easily reaches the
conclusion that when the agent fails |
to satisfy his principal he may right
ly be recalled. The fallacy in the
argument is in the assumption that
the Judge is an agent. He is not au
agent in any proper sense of the
word. He is not the agent of either |
party 10 a cause. He is not even the |
agent of both parties. II his duty |
were to trade and compromise be-
tween them he might be considered |
the agent of both. But that is not
his duty. His duty is to dcide; it IS
not for him to please, nor to seek to
please, either party. 1t is for him to
decide the question between them as
law and justice require.
Why Not Be Instructed?
IF judicial opinions are to be re-
viewed at popular elections, why
should not judges be instructed be-
forehand how to decide questions
that are certain to arise? They
would be saved the possibility of |
making a mistake. If that is not to
be done, the greatest jurist will be
the one who shows himself most ex-
pert and nimble in keeping on the
side of the majority.
when the king asked Lord Coke
how he would decide certain sues
ton II 1t came before him, he re-
piled: When that case arises I will
decide il as will befit judge His
tory has recorded the answer with a |
proud smile. When democracy asks
that question of her judges shall
they answer with less dignity and
self-respect than the chief justice of
the Stuarts? When Prince Hal
struck the lord chief justice on the
bench and went to Jail for it, the
king shed happy tears that he had a
Judge who dared administer the law
even to the heir apparent, and that
he had a son who in his sober
second thought accepted the judg-
ment of the law. Has free America,
in the twentieth century, less rever
ence for law than the house of Lam
caster had 500 years ago? In one re-
spect the Roman tribunes performed
for the Roman people the office that
our judges do for us-they had the
power to veto laws that struck at
fundamental rights. You remember
that when the plebs were advised to
do away with tribunes by those
whose purpose had been thwarted by
them, the tribunes called the people
| 20 their senses with a fable. Once
upon time, they said, the wolves adj
vised the sheep to get rid of their
watchdogs, because they interfered
with the sheep going where they
pleased. and were really the only OBJ
stacle 10 a perfect understanding be-
tween the forest and the fold. When,
afterwards, the people did give up
their tributes they lost their liberty
and they never regained it till they
got them back. Your watchdog may
annoy the sheep when they wish to
so astray, he may even nip one of
them now and then as he tries to
bring them back, but let the flock
think twice before they exchange the
watchdog for the wolf.
THE proposal to recall judges for
unpopular decisions is nothing less
than a proposal to abolish courts. To
abolish courts is to abolish freedom.
However innocent the motives of
thos ewho propose the measure, no
deadlier blow was ever aimed at the
heart of human liberty than this The
people have only to understand it to
reject IT, They are not ready to
throw away the fruits of their long
labors and unnumbered battles, Ia
bors endured and battles waged for
this very thing, that under the broad
shield of sacred and inviolable JUS
tice the weakest or most hated
might rest secure in their liberty,
their property, their lives. They will
discover the tyrant under this fiatter-
ing disguise. And in the end they will
consign TO obloquy the names Of
those who would have tempted them
90 their destruction"