The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1912-01-26
LnFolIette,s Recall system.

Ailf OtleJLeS hecdll system.
When advocating the recall of
public officials as one of +'hts pol
icies" in his opening campaign
speech in New York City the other
night, Robert LaFollette was asked
II he would recall judge. In
stantly the speaker replied that he
came to New York prepared to say
that he favored the recall for the
Judiciary. OF course, great ap-
plause greeted the statement. That
was one of the principal things for
which Mr.. LaFo1lette was appearing
there and no doubt his managers
made all the necessary arrangements
for abundant applause at certain
cllmaxes. 1t further appears from
what Mr.. LaFollette subsequently
said that he was purposely seeking
cheap notoriety of the kind.
Just like che street corner
speaker who speedily changes his
subject as soon as the mob yells,
MT. LaFollette switched himself
from one extreme to the other in
apologize manner for the apparent
purpose of getting yells from the
fellows who did not yell at his first
utterance. Read how Mr.. LaFollette
"hedged" his position in his own
words:
But, 1 am going to disappoint
you. l am going to say that I am
in favor of hedging that recall of
the judiciary about with restrictions
which 1 would not apply in the recall
of legislators. do not defy the
bench. l don't think it is exactly
heavenly or divine. When court
forgets that it's function is just to
administer the laws and goes to Leg
islating, 1 think there is some justi-
fication for applying the recall to
them"
Now, is not that the rankest kind
of demagogery?- In one breath La
Toilette favors the recall of the
judiciary and in the next-just as
soon US the crowd yells-he reverses
himself with quick, double-back
action and says he practically does
not favor it. What sort of wish
.washy person is this who seeks to
be president? Where does he
actually stand in regard to the re-
call of the judiciary? He would
recall judges whenever they leave of
administering the laws and begin to
"legislate." What is the guage or
standard by which this Is to be de-
termined? Is it the LaFollette
mind? William ]. bryan and few
others believe the recent decisions
of the federal supreme court in the
Standard Oil and Tobacco Trust
cases were instances of law making
and not law defining and yet there
are countless thousands of people
who take the opposite view.
sifted down, Mr.. LaFollette is
only another instance of the agita-
tor who knows all the political ills
of mankind but who offers no rem
edy for any of them. Mr.. LaFol-
lette thinks judges ought to be re-
called because in the opinion of
some they legislate and then he
thinks they ought not to be recalled
because it would not be quite the
proper thing to defy the bench, and
create distrust OF one of the most
important functions of government.
Yet he lays down as the offense for
which judges are to be recalled a
visionary, uncertain line of demar-
cation to be determined in hap
hazard way and at any old time
some one tries to stir up prejudice
and hatred against certain Judge.
The effort to make all judicial
decisions conform to popular clamor
is an effort to tear down the laws
of the country for the reason that
the sudden and temporary passions
of the mob do not always represent
the correct view. 1t is we'll re-