Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1912-03-14

:. nrnoosed 10 provide Uy' law that
whenever n Judge has 80 discharged
h,s duties as to induce certain per
cantaxe of the electorate to deem II
wise TO remove him and that percent
are aiRu a petition asking his recall
an election shall take place In which
the incumbent shall stand against
other candidates: and II he does not
secure q plurality of votes. he is ipso
facto removed. have pointed out tnat
under our form of government and
constitution many of the issues aris-
ing before our courts are In eject Is
sues between the state and the indi-
v,dual between the majority and the
minority-cases in which the popular
interest might be greatly excited to
secure a favorable judgment BY this
svstem the question whether the judge
ia to be removed or not 10 to be left
to that majority that may be greatly
aroused to secure from him 1udg-
ment favorable to them. Could sys-
tenn be devised, better adapted to de-
priye the judiciary OF that independ-
ence without which the liberty ana
other rights OF the individual can not
be maintained against the government
and the majority?
Would Amend impeachment procedure
But 1t is said we may have corrupt
judges. How are we going to get ria
, of them? They can be tmpeacneu
under our present system. But that
is said to be too cumbersome. Well'
amend the procedure of impeachment.
Create a tribunal for removal OF
Judges for cause. Give them an op-
portunity to be heard and by an lm-
partial tribunal; but do not create a
system by which, in the heat OF ais
appointment over a lost cause. the de-
feated litigants are to decide without
further hearing or knowledge whether
the Judge who decides against them 10
to continue in once. 1t would be harn
to devise q more unjust and inefIec-
tive method of purifying the judiciary
or one less likely TO promote courage
OF honest conviction.
Let us examine the other method
proposed for the reform OF the 1u-
dietary. That is a recall Of decisions.
BY this method, when q supreme court
has found a law, intended to secure
public benefit, to be invalid because II
infringes some constitution Limitation,
the decision is TO be submitted to q
vote OF the qualified electors. and II
majority Of them differ with the conri
! and reverse the deciBion thsSlaw - %
be regarded and enforced as valid and
constitutional.
This is a remarkable suggestion
and one which Is so contrary to any
thing in government heretofore pro
posed that 1t Is hard to give 1t the
serious consideration which 1t de
serves because Of its advocates and Oi
| the conditions under which 1t Is ad'
Vanced.
Suppose the act to be invalid be
cause it infringes the rights OF liberty
of certain unpopular class and by In
direct means suspends the writ OF
habeas corpus in their cases. | ask
any candid, fairminded man II the
decision of such a question when sub
mitted to a popular majority is not
likely to turn rather upon the popu
lar disfavor of those affected thar
upon the possible infraction of the
constitutional liberty of citizen. Lei
another law involving other classes
who could make themselves heard be
submitted and would not the COURT
decision be likely to be sustained BY
the majority?
Decision Recall Objectionable.
A most serious objection to the re
call of decisions is that 1t destroys q.