The Detroit times., 1912-02-21

who supports the courts against the
people Is untrue TO the memory oi 100
coin. and shows that he Is the splrit ,
ual heir, not OF the men VINO ioli"w -
and supported Lincoln. but OF me 20.
ton Wings who supported Chlet
n
attacking the courts and the cohsN'u-
tion - ,..,,,ad,,
Under our federal system the remedy
for a wrong such as Abraham l.llNo i,.
described is difficult But the Iei", ~
Is not difficult In state. uat ~
supreme court OF the nation ueClusS ~.
be law binds both the nauonAi anu ~ ~
slate courts and all the people ~ =
the boundaries OF the nAtlon. 49, 80
decision OF a state court on coistl' u
tional question should be subject 70
revision by the people OF the slsai' e
Again and again In. the past JusliSe
has been scandalously 49, IN
state courts declaring state law IN
\ conflict with the federal cons sution'
although the supreme court OF the ia
: ton had never so decided or had even
decided in contrary sense w men the
7 s,,nrsme court OF the state declares a
given statute unconstitutional, because
! in conflict with the state or the hauoil-
al constitution, its opinion shoulu DC
subject 10 revision by the people them-
selves such an opinion ought always
! 10 be treated with great respect py the
people, and unquestiona In the ma.
lority OF cases would be accepted anu
followed by them. But actual eNper-
fence has shown the vital need OF the
people reserving TO themselves the
right TO pass upon such opinion. ~
any considerable number or the people
feel that the decision is In denance OF
Justice. they should be given the right
by petition TO bring before the voters
at some subsequent election, special or
otherwise, as might be decided. ana ar
ter the fullest opportunity Tor deHper-
alton and debate. the question whether
or not the Judges Interpretation OF the
constitution is 10 be sustained III II
Is sustained, well and GOOD. II not
then the popular verdict is 10 be &C
cepted as final. the decision Is to be
treated as reversed. and the construc-
ton of the constitution definitely de-
cided-subject only TO acuon py the
supreme court OF the United states
Many eminent lawyers who more or
less frankly disbelieye In our entire
American system OF government Tor.
by, and of the people, violently antag
onize this proposal. They believe. anu
people are not fitted for popular gov
eminent, and that II is necessary 10
keep the judiciary independent OF the
majority or OF all the people that
there must be no appeal TO ee peopie
from the decision OF court In any
case: and that therefore the Judges are
TO be established as sovereign rulers
over the people l take absolute issue
with all those who hold such posi-
ton. l regard IL as complete mega
don OF our whole system OF govern
ment: and IL IL became the dominant
position In this country, II would mean
the absolute upsetting or both tue
ri ghts and the rule OF the people. III
the American people are not mt Tor
popular government. and II they should
OF right be the servants ana nor the
masters or the men whom they them
selves put in office, then Lincoln
work was wasted and the whole sys-
TEN OF government upon which TINS
great democratic republic rests Is
failure. | believe, on the contrary,
with all my heart that the American
people are nj for complete self-govern-
ment, and that in spite OF all our fati-
ings and shortcomings, we OF TINS re-
public have more nearly realized than
any other people on earth the Ideal
OF Justice attained through genuine
popular rule. The position which these
eminent lawyers take and applaud rs
OF necessity condemnation or Lin
coins whole life: for his great public
ditioned By his insistence, In the bred
Scott case, upon the fact that the
American people were the masters ana
not the servants OF even the highest
court in the land, and were thereby
the .iual interpreters OF the Constltu-
ton. IL the courts have the final say
so on all legislative acts, and II no
appeal can lie from them 10 the people,
Their they are the irresponsible masters
OF the people. The only tenable excuse
fer such a position is the frank avowal
that the people lack sufficient intelli-
gence and morality to be MT to gov
ern themselves. In other words, those
who take this position hold that the
people have enough intelligence 10
frame and adopt Constitution, but
not enough intelligence 10 apply and
interpret the Constitution which they
have themselves made. Those who
take this position hold that the people
are competent TO choose officials TO
whom they delegate certain powers,
7 k..t off a
Gals respon BILE for the way they ex-
ercise these powers. Now the power
10 interpret Is the power TO establish;
and II the people are not to be allowed
finally TO interpret the Fundamental
law, ours is not a popular government.
The true view is that Legislators and
Judges alike are the seryants-uf-
people, who have been created by the
the Constitution; and they hold only
such power as the people have for the
time being delegated 10 them. III these
two sets OF public servants disagree as
TO the amounts of powa respectively
delegatcd TO them by the people under
the Constitution. and III the case Is OF
sufficient Importance. then. as a mat
ter OF course, II should be the right OF
the people themselves to decide be-
tween them.
I do not say that the people are in
fallible. But 1 do say that our whole
history shows that the American peo-
pie are more often sound in their de-
cisions than Is the case with any OF
the governmental bodies TO whom. for
their convenience, they have delegated
portions OF their power. III this is not
SO, then there Is no Jurisdiction for
the existence OF our government; and
II 10 is so then there Is no Justification
for refusing to give the people the
real, end not merely the nominal. ultl-
mate decision on questions OF consti-
tutioual law. Just as the people, and
not the supreme court under Chief Jus
tice Taney. were Wise In their de-
cisions OF the vital questions OF their
day. so / hold that now the American
people as whole have shown them
sefNes@wIser- THAI the courts in the
with such vital questions OF our day
as those concerning the proper control
of big corporations and OF securing
their rights to industrial workers.
Here | am not dealing with theories
am dealing with actual facts. In
New York, in Illinois, in Connecticut,
lamcntable injustice has been perpetu-
ated. often for many years, by de-
cisions OF the state courts refusing 10
permit the people OF the states to eN-
ercise their right as free people 10
do their duty rs "A conscientious people
In removing grave wrong and social In
Justice These foolish and iniquitous
decisions have almost always been rem
dercd at the expense OF the weak; they
have almost always been the means OF
putting a stop TO the effort 10 remove
burdens from wage-workers to secure
to men who toll on the farm and on
the railway. or In the factory, better
and safer conditions OF labor and OF
life. often the judges who have rem
dered- these decisions have been EN-
tirely well-meaning men, who. however.
did not know life as they knew law