Norwich bulletin., 1912-03-09
President Taft Says They Are SOwn by Such Pro-
 pOsas as the Recall of Decisions
ANSWER TO ROOSEVELTS SPEECH AT COLUMBUS
Would Subject Guaranties of L Liberty and Property to
 the Fifu Impulse of Temporary Majority of an ElectO- rate-Woud Destroy Probability of Consistency and Prepare the Way For Exercise of the Greatest Tyranny

broadened constitutional restrictions to invalidate useful statutes or had given to statutes a wrong construction.
 Would Deprive Judges of Independence
 The president then took up the pro- posed remedies, first the recall of judges and later the recall of judicial decisions. Than the recall of judges, he declared, there could not be sys- tenn better adapted to deprive the judi ciary of that independence without which the liberty and other rights of the individual cannot be maintained against the government and the ma jority." If the impeachment were too cumbersome 8 proceeding to apply to corrupt judges, he proposed tribunal for the removal of judges for cause.
 Of the recall of judicial decision, President Taft said in part:
 Would Be Suspension of Constitution.
 This Is a remarkable suggestion and one which is so contrary to anything in government heretofore proposed that it is hard to give to it the serious con- sideration which it deserves because or it's advocates and of the conditions under which it is advanced. What this recall of decisions will amount to if applied to constitutional questions IS that there will be a suspension of the constitution to enable a temporary majority of the electorate to enforce d popular but invalid act"
 Destroys Probability of Consistency.
 "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 ma jority which comes to consider an- other, and the obligation of consistency of popular decision is one which would sit most lightly on each recurring cleo torate and the operation of the sys- tenn would result in suspension of ap- plication of constitutional guaranties according to popular whim.
 A Fsllacious Argument.
 We would have then a system of suspending the constitution to meet special instances. But the main argu- ment used to sustain 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 de- cisions is nothing but the exercise of the power of interpretation. This is clearly fallacious argument. The approval of general principles in constitution on one hand and the in depreciation of a~statute and consider ation of its probable operation in a particular case and it's possible in 1 fringement of a general principle on the other hand are very different : things.
 One Simple, the Other Complex.
 '"rhe one is simple, the latter com l plex; and the latter when submitted to l @ popular vote. as already pointed out oh l~.Tvr 4, an Issue of general approval or dis approval of the act on its merits for the special purpose of its enactment | than upon its violation of the consti- 1 tuition, Moreover, a popular majority 1 does not adopt q constitution, or any | principle of it, or amend it's terms, un- til after it has been adopted by a con- stltutional convention or legislature, and the final adoption is, and ought to be, surrounded with such checks and delays as to secure deliberaton.
 Prepared Way for Greatest Tyranny.
 Can it be that the power of tenn porary majority of the electorate by a single popular vote to do away with rights secured to individuals which have been inviolable for seven hundred years, since the days of the Magma Charter, approves itself to those who ] AONt llbcIlN anu WHO lOlQ OedI Us | sacred guaranties? Would We not in giving such powerful effect to the mo- mentary impulse of a majority of an electorate prepare the way for the pos sible exercise of the greatest tyranny?
 Crude, Revolutionary and Unstable.
 Finally, I ask what is the necessity for such 8 crude, revolutionary, ftful and unstable way of reversing judicial constructions Of the constitution? Why. if the construction is wrong, can it not be righted by constitutional amend ment?
 "An answer made to this is that the same judges would cOnstrue the amendment and defeat the popular will as in the first instance. This assumes dishonesty and gross violation of their oaths of duty on the part of the judges, hypothesis utterly utenabIe
 Sowing Seeds of Confusion and Tyranny
 Such proposal as this is utterly without merit or utility, and, instead of being progressive, is reactionary: instead of being in the interest of ali the people, and of the stability of pop ular government, is sowing the seeds o1 confusion and tyranny"