The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1912-03-21

demand of them. A dependent ju-
dietary in monarchical England
produced the Star Chamber and
Judge Jeffreys. A dependent ju-
dietary in the French Revolution
produced the Tribunal Of the Ter
ror.
When the Mcnamara brothers
were arrested and put on trial,
the labor organizations through
out the country assumed their
innocence and demanded their ac-
quittal. The capitalistic organs
throughout the country, though
more conservatively and cautious
ly, assumed their guilt, though
they did not demand their cor 4
viction. 1t is perfectly apparen t
that if the conviction of the Nc
Namara brothers had depended
upon popular vote there would
have been no adequate investiga-
ton, no fair trial, no impartial
tribunal, no honest and just re-
suit. To provide that the judge
who presides over such a trial
may be recalled from his office
if his decision is not satisfac-
tory to the voters is to provide
that his decision must be subject
to an appeal to a popular vote +
tribunal not free from partisan
ship and prejudice, and therefore
absolutely untitled to reach a JUS
conclusion. Imagine that the Me-
Namara brothers had been tried,
found guilty, and sentenced, and
then that the labor organiza-
tons had initiated a movement
for the recall of the judge who
presided at the trial. Improbable
Perhaps; but not impossible.
1t is clear that there should
not be power lodged in the pc o.
pie to unseat judge because he
has rendered an unpopular de-
cision either between Individual
suitors or between the people and
an individual sutton.
There are two, and only two,
just reasons for the removal of
a Judge: corruption and ineffi-
cheney.
Adequate provision is made in
most of the states for the reno "
al of a corrupt judge, either by
impeachment proceedings or by
legislative action upon charges
preferred and with hearing pro
vided. Recall by a popular vote
upon suspicion Of corruption
without trial and without formu
lated charges, would be palpa
bly, unjust.
The inefficiency may be du,
to Incidence, or to narrow-mind
edness and tradition, or to ;
spirit of traditionalism, or to ig
norance of the actual condition
Of life, or to indifference to tn
spirit of social justice and en-
phasis ON the letter Of the law
or to an undemocratic characte
out of harmony with the age an'
country, or to any other cause
But, whatever the cause, the rem
edy is not removal by popula
vote without hearing except VI
on the hastings, but by the legisl
ture after hearing. This meth
cd is already provided for il
some of our states. If the leg
islature is slow to employ thi
remedy, public opinion can a
the next election choose a legis
lature more responsive to the POI
ular will.
There remains one plausibl
ground for advocating the re cal
of judges, namely, that they hav
used their power to nullify tn
will of the people by declaring il
valid legislative acts framed t.
carry out the will Of the people.
The people have conferred, bot
upon the courts of the United
States and upon the legislature
Of the several states, only limit
ed powers. Those powers ar
defined in written constitutions
When congress or the Legislature
passes an act which the peopl
have given it no power to pass
the courts have assumed authorii
to declare the act invalid, becaus
by such an act the Legislative
body exceeds the powers whicl
the people have given. Beeaus
this authority of the courts to de
clare invalid acts of the nationa
congress and the state legisla
lures is thought to nullify tn
popular will, the recall is urge
as means of remedying such nul
LITIGATION of the popular will
This is clumsy remedy for tn
evil.