The Lamar register., 1912-03-27

"a
as they usually do. the majority
must govern. But that is not the
whole. of the proposition. If it
were, there would be no safeguard
whatever for the rights of the min
ority. The majority might appro-
priata their property. 1t might re-
duce them to slavery. 1t might
even take away their lives. The
takes for granted, then,
certain guarantees for the protec-
ton of the majority. And what
are these? They are those elemen-
tary rights which no majority,
They have been recognized in con-
stitutions and bills of rights, but
they were not created by them.
They inhere in free government it.
sible without them. Among these
rights there is none more important
than this. that no citizen shall be
deprived of his liberty or proper
" except ny ina JuuSheht Vi the
law, and after trial before an
Independent and impartial tribun-
al We have now come to the key
stone of the arch. 1t is this: The
majority of the legal voters can not
constitute itself this tribunal.
"If 1t can, 1t still holds the
property and lives of the minority
in its hands. subject to its mere
will and pleasure, for there is no
one who can call 1t to account.
LET us inquire whether this
reasoning fits the facts OF the pres
en-. time. Take but one example:
A popular majority. through the
legislature elected by it, or more
directly by the initiative and ref
erendum. enacts statute requir-
ing railroads to carry passengers
for l cent "a mile. A test case comes
before the court. The railroad in
sists that the act robs II of its
property, and the court SO holds.
Thereupon. the same popular ma
jority votes the judges out of of
flee and elects to fill their places
judges who will reverse the decis-
ion. Has not the popular major
ity constituted itself the court?
May a man be the Judge in his own
case?
Let us test the measure by an
other fundamental principle. A
despot makes the law and also
decides whether the particular case
comes within the law. Or he may
just as well dispense with tho law.
since no one can question his de-
cision that the case comes within
il. On the other hand, in free
law, while another body decides
whether the particular case falls
within the rule. Thus the citizen.
is protected. We call IL keeping,
the legislative and judicial de-.
partmnets separate. In a despot,
ism they are united. In free gov,
ernment they are separate. Now, if
the popular majority not only,
makes the law but decides.
whether a given case falls within
it. then the legislative and judic-
ial powers are united in the same.
body and the government ceases to,
be free and becomes despot-
ism.
THE proposal to recall Judges
for unpopular decisions is nothing,
less than a proposal to abolish.
courts. To abolish courts is to abb
olish freedom. However innocent
the motives of those who propose
the measure, no deadlier blow was
ever aimed at the heart of human
liberty than this. The people have
only to understand ii to reject it.
They are not ready to- throw away
the fruits of their long labors
and unnumbered battles. labors en-
dured and battles waged for this
very thing, that under the broad
shield of sacred and inviolable
justice the weakest or most hat
ed might rest secure in their lib
erty, their property, their lives.