The advocate. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1901-1913, 1912-03-21


I ieRye4 that aside ID ut, a. to the other
oticers, J. hare heard no argument adj
'yanced against the proposition save
that It will make the public ofacer
dm1d ana always enrrying favor With
the mobs y That> arautnent means that
you can fool Nh the people all the time
and Is an aEowal OF disbelief In dernoc.
racy. II 1t be true--apd believe It is
not---it. is less Important than to stop
thosehpnblic officers from currying ia
Fvor with the interests. s tl.f...'.,
i Then there is the direct primary-the
real one. not. the New York ohe-~and
that, too. the prGgressives offer as
CHECK on the, special interests. : Most.
CLEARLY Of all does It seem to me that
this change is wholly good for every
( state. The system OF party government
Is not written in our constitutions, but
! It is none the less a vital and essential
part Of our form of governments In
that system the party leaders should
serve and carry out the will of their
own party, There Is no need to show
how far that theory IN: from the facts.
or TO rehearse the vulgar thieving, part
nerships OF the, corporations and the
bosses, or to show how many umeazthe
real government lies III the hands Of
the boss, protected from the commands
| and the revenge OF the voters by his
puppets in Office and the power Of pat
| ronage. The direct primary will give
the voters a method ever ready to use
by which the party leader shall be
made2to obey their command. The d.
rect primary, II accompanied by q
stringent corrupt practices act, wilt
help break up the corrupt partnership
OF CORPORATIONS and politicians.
+ Recall Of Judges. =
My opponents charge that two things
In my program are wrong because"they
intrude into the sanctuary of, the judi
ctary. The first is the recall Of judges
and the second the review by the peo-
pie of judicial decisions on certain con-
stitutional questions. have said again
and again that l do not advocate the
recall Of Judges in. all states and In all
communities. The integrity OF our
Judges from Marshall to White and
Holmes-aud to Cullen and many 9TH
ers in our own state--is fine page OF
American history. Butt say it sober
ly~-democracy has the right to ap-
proHch the sanctuary of the conrtst
when n special interest has corruptly
found sanctuary there. l. 81 :,
have stated that the courts of the
several states-not always. but often
have. construed j., the .."due process,
clause of the state constitutions as If
1t prohibited the whole people Of the
state from adopting methods of regu-
latng the use Of property so that hui
man life, particularly the lives, of the
worktngmen, shall be safer, freer and
happier. No one can successfully i'm
peach this statement l have insisted
that the true construction Of "due proc
ess" is that pronounced by Justice
Holmes In delivering the unanimous
opinion Of the supreme court Of the
United States, when he said:
"Ehe police power extends to all the
great public needs. =. It may be put
forth In aid Of what is sanctioned by
,, usage or held by the prevailing mo-
rality or strong and prependerant opin-
lon to be greatly and Immediately
necessary tothe public welfare"
Insist that the decision of the New
York court Of appeals in the Ives case,
which set aside the will Of the; ma
5ortty Of the people as to the compen-
sation Of injured workmen In danger
Gus trades. was tntoIerable and based
on wrong political philosophy. urge
that in such cases where the courts
| construe the due process clause as If
property rights, to the exclusion of
human rights, had q first mortgage on
the constitution, the people may, after
sober dellberation, vote and finally de-
termine whether the law which the
! Court set aside shall be valid or not.
BY this method can be clearly and final
~ ascertained the preponderant opin-
ion Of the people which Justice Holmes
makes the, test Of due process in the
case Of laws enacted In the exercise
Of the police power. The ordinary
methods now in vogue Of amending
the constitution have in actual practice
proved wholly inadequate to secure
justice tnhsuch cases with reasonable
speed and cause intolerable delay and
injustice, and those who stand against
the changes / propose are champions
Of wrong and injustice and Of tyran-
ny by the wealthy and the strong over
the. weak and the helpless.
Limitations of tina Racial.
SO that no man may misunderstood
me- let me recapitulate: --.----. ..-..
First--I am not proposing anything
In connection with the supreme court
Of the United States or with the fed
eral constitution.
Second.--I am not proposing anything
having any connection with ordinary
suits, civil or criminal, as between in
dividuals.
Third am not speaking Of the re-