The Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1912-1917, 1912-03-15
TAFT SCORES RECALL
WOULD ROB JUDICIARY OF INDIE.
PENDENCE WHICH is Bull
WARK OF LIBERTY.
FITFUL AND UNSTABLE PLAN
Method of Reversing judicial DecL
sions Lays Ak at Foot of Tree Of
WeII-Ordered Freedom-CaIis Ar
guments Weak and FaIIacious.

Toledo, Ohio.-In an address on
The Judiciary and Progress" deliv-
cred here, President Taft comes out
strongly against the recall of Judges
and the recall Of judicial decisions.
After dealing at length with the the
DRY Of government and the functions
of our courts, the president takes UP
the charges against the existing sys-
tenn. He says:
The defects in our judiciary have
not been in the corruption of the
judges, but mainly in the procedure
and in the helplessness of the Judges
In jury cases to assist in reaching
rlght conclusions. Such defects are
completely within the control of the
legislatures Of the state and congress.
But these humdrum defects and
their tedious remedies are not Of the
spectacular character to call for politi-
cal discussion or to attract effort from
politicians in the passage of remedial
legislation. The formidable attack
upon our judiciary now is that the
judges do not respond sufficiently to
popular opinion. 1t is said that courts
are interposing their obstructive pow
er to the enforcement of legislation
looking to the relief of the oppressed,
by declaring laws unconstitutional and
by so-called judicial legislation in in
terpreting into statutes words not in
tended by the legislatures. How is it
proposed to remedy these wrongs? In
one of two ways, either by the judicial
recall Or by the recall of judicial deci-
sions.
In the remedy by judicial recall it
is proposed to provide by law that
whenever judge has so discharged
his duties as to induce a certain per-
centage of the electorate to deem it
wise to remove him and that percent
age sign petition asking his recall
Could system be devised, better
adapted to deprive the judiciary of
that independence without which the
liberty and other rights of the indi
vidual cannot be maintained against
the government and the majority?
But it is said we may have corrupt
judges. How are we going to get rid
of them. They can be impeached
under our present system But that
is said to be too cumbersome Well,
amend the procedure of impeachment
Create tribunal for removal Of
judges for cause. Give them an OPP
portunity to be heard and by an i'm
partial tribunal; but do not create a
system by which, in the heat of dis
appointment over lost cause, the de-
feated litigants are to decide without
further hearing or knowledge whether
the judge who decides against them Is
to continue in office. 1t would be hard
to devise more unjust and ineffec-
tive method Of purifying the judiciary
or one less likely to promote courage
of honest conviction.
Passing on to the question of the
recall of decisions. he says:
"A most serious objection to the re-
call of decisions is that it destroys all
probability of consistency in constitu-
tional Interpretation. The majority
which sustains one law is not the
same majority that comes to consid-
er another, and the obligation Of con-
sistency Of popular decision is one
which would sit most lightly on each
recurring electorate, and the operation
Of the system would result in suspen-
sion or application of constitutional
guarantees according to popular whim.
We would then have a system Of sus-
pending the Constitution to meet spe-
cial cases.
But the main argument used to sus-
tain such a popular review of judicial
decisions is that If the people are
competent to establish a constitution
they are competent to interpret it and
that this recall of decisions Is nothing
but the exercise of the power Of in
depreciation. This is clearly a fall
lacious argument.
Constitutions ought to be protected
by such requirements as to their
amendment, to insure great delibera-
ton by the people in making them
much greater than one vote Of a mere
temporary majority.
Finally l ask what is the necessity
for such a crude, revolutionary, fitful
and unstable way of reversing judicial
construction of the Constitution?
Why, if the construction is wrong,
can it not be righted by a constitu-
tional amendment?
Il have examined this proposed
method Of reversing judicial decisions
on constitutional questions with care.
l do not hesitate to say that it lays
the ak at the foot of the tree of we'll
ordered freedom and subjects the
guarantees Of life, liberty, and prop
erty without remedy to the fitful i'm
pulse of a temporary majority Of an
electorate"