New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-03-30
THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW
Federal Constitution Not 1nclud,
ed in Colonel Roosevelt's Plans.

| and Progress ana In Inc CnartcI VI
| Democracy Mr.. Roosevelt has unques'
| tonably outlined a serious situation. IN
reference TO which there is good reason 10
! forestall further passionate cutlery and tc
! formulate adequate remedies.
Mr.. Roosevelt comedies that judicial In
| tcrprctation Of the Constitution By the SUI
prone Court has resulted in periods OF eK'
pansion aud periods Of contraction, ac'
cording as the prevailing political theories
! Of the court were al odds or I'm accord win
| the prevailing public opinion Of the time
/ lie cites against the Supreme Court as re-
| dictionary decisions perpetuating injustice
! and distorting the Constitution, the income
| tax case. the Knight sugar case. the bake
! shop case reversing the New York Court
| Of Appeals, and finally, the federal work
mems compensation case, which left the
mans blood [toI forever cry aloud In vain
| for Justice" This is the period OF ex-
! pansion. As to this last decision, he adds
| that It Was decided as I do not for one
moment believe the court would now De-
| eide" In his opinion period Of contrac-
ton has set in, when the Constitution Is
to he held down and not allowed TO inter-
| fero with human liberties. This is further
emphasized by the Massachusetts lapor
| law case. which the court sustained, ana
| as to which Mr.. Roosevelt says
| If only the principles set forth IN TINS
! opinion Justice McKennal and In JuSuCIe
! Holiness opinion in the Oklaholna oalir
! law there would he No need or changuH
| this law so as to preserve popular rights,
| This Is what | should Infinitely prefer W
see done But If this CaunOt be done theii
3 ! uI, rbarnn'On such ChdnBt OF
tho formal expression Of the FUNDAMENTAL
law as will render II immensely easier IMAM
I at present for the people 10 pass uildu! V'I
any constitutional Interpretation by the
| judiciary.
The Supreme Court, which. at one hn'e'
he tells us Caiding the New York courp
have thrown what at times have proved
welInigh or altogether ingurmountahie OBJ
stacles in the path Of needed social re-
FORMS" and which in the bakeshop case
took the ground that the people of tho
State Of New York did not have the right
when they found certain conditions 70 ne
unhygienlc and so declared through the
legislature. to prevent men from working
too many hours under these unhyglehl;
conditions" has now apparently. according
to Mr. Roosevelt abandoned the 'outWorn
and mischievous system Of social ana
economic philosophy" and no longer 'arro-
gate To themselves tho right to upset the
deliberate Judgment Of the people on social
and governmental politcies,' but are pre-
pared ITO share our views Of social ana
economic reform" and have them applied
10 the actual conditions OF modern life
For the moment, then, Mr.. Roosevelt Is
satisfied with the Interpretation of the fed
eraI Constitution by the supreme Court
and is willing to lay aside the heated
animadversons upon it's former action
even on such a recent case as the national
workmen's compensation act. where Inc
blood ~ the slain was forever 10 cry aloud
I'm vain for justice" and about which ne
added that this statement was far less
strong than the actual facts lie aban-
dons any effort to amend the United states
Constitution or to have its Interpretation
revised by the vote Of the people, confin-
inc himself 10 the easier and less important
subject Of the state constitutions. lie Tor
gets that these constitutions may by their
own terms be formally amended in less
time than he has fixed as the minimum
for the discussion which must precede MS
suggested review by vote of the people
two Years He ignores his own warning
that II is the federal Constitution which
imperatvely demands greater facility OF
amendment, and seems unaware that the
danger to the continued efficiency Of the
Supreme Court and to its supremacy In the
confidence and respect and submission or
the people lies i'm its function Of interpret
ing the charter of our government. and
applving social or economic or political
theories 10 the changing conditions of our
national life.
The exercise Of this function of inter-
probation has. as already shown, resulted
in periods Of liberal Interpretation or of
strict construction, depending upon the
agreement or disagreement Of the judicial
views OF government with the ideas Of pub
lie policy prevalent throughout the country
and dominating the thought Of the time:
II is this which is I'm the main unaccountable
for the freedom. not 10 say the virulence.
Of the criticism to which the court has
been subjected. not only by an anonymous
press. but by men III high public office and
by its own members. The respect and pro-
lection with which mon of English speech
hedge about their judiciary in the admins
iratiOn of law does not extend to a body
engaged in the purely political function
Of amending by Interpretation our charter
Of Government. nor has the minority I'm
political convention ever been tender In
its Judgment or mild I'm tho disapproval OF
the triumphant majority-and an Assistant
Attorney General once characterized the
Supreme Court as a Constitutional Con-
vention I'm continuous session. This will
explain the bitter waters which Mr.. Bryan
and Mr. Roosevelt have both drunk from
tho dissenting opinions in such cases.
And yet after all these assaults upon the
so-caIled reactonary social injustice Of the
Supreme Court the only remedy Mr..
Roosevelt ventures to suggest IS an appeal
to the people from the constitutional de
Cisions of the state courts, this appeal 10
be subject to action by the Supreme Court
Of the United States" and the decision
Of the people 10 he binding upon every citi-
zen in the state. official or unofficial UNI
less. Of course, the Supreme Court of the
nation iu any given case decides other
wise"
RE states clearly that under our fed
eral system the remedy for a wrong such
as Abraham Lincoln described is difficult"
and that the remedy IS not difficult in a
state" yet he leaves untouched the bar
ileGS OF the lsu'ldl NpHsuIuuoH hIu VI
the "anti-socsl' interpretations OF the Su-
preme Court. and gravely proposes his
novel remedy, solely with reference to
state constitutions. Before his remedy
could be applied the minimum time would
be two years of discussion by the people"
yet surely he must know that an amend
ment 10 our state constitution I'm the
manner duly provided by that instrument
could be effected within that time, and that
his proposed appeal to the people is OF no
possible benefit
l..... ,Lo, T., l,ag ,,,,Dyored ia ,na