The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1912-03-11

INU law WIZ IT. N"N NN'''N""|IN '"
whether the law D. on KS merits
good law rather than whether 4 con
diets With the cOnsiiiuflons The In
fernreiation Of me constitution and
Tie operatlonof 4 q y % violate some
iinlhation ~ That instrnment ageQtten
nice questions 10 be settled rs Indi=
flai reasoning add farsiglited experls
enee which are not Ia BE expected IF
lie electorate 81: gelcnmed5 hy II y
The issne IS transferred to them the.
simple question win be Of the approval
81 liisapproya q me Inv. Watt IBIS
fecail 0f DECISIONS VIII then amount 10
IN spptied toconsitntlonal questions =
that there VIII BE a suspension q the
nstitution to.cnable 4 temporary ma
torfty 81. fllR eleetoraie to enforce 2
popular but inrald act.
Suppose theact 10 be invalid because
ii infringes the rights of l:bertyiof a
certain ulnopplqr class ana, by Indirect
means susrcnds the writ Of hqbeas
CORPUS In their cases. 4 ask aly ctli.s
did. fair minded man II the decision
OF such question when submitted to
d popular majority is rot likely toturn
rather upcp the popplar disfayot 81
those affected than ufon the possible
infraction OF the constitutional liberty
Of a citizen. Let another LAW llyolE-
ing other classes who could make the:iis,
selves heard be submitted md would
not the courts decision be likely 70 BE
sustained By the majority.
Where It Would Work Harm
Take another case. instances Of
which have frequently arisen Id our
history. Suppose in the early develop
ment Of a state the question arises
whether series of special privileges
shall be granted to a rich company
willing toipfest Il only tbetprlylleges
are EXCLUSIVE and certain Suppose
the court finds the law unconstitli'
tional and the decision is submitted to
the people. In an early state Of de
velcpment the popular yearningis for
capital and expansion, and the popular
yotefmisAtfTeIl fasten such ~ burden
ont tilel stateand people forever Or
course in tbs day and generation sncB
danger win be said to be remote but
in a business and pol Itical atmosphere
like that IN Alaska Of today the popu;
lar view Is different Later on. OF
course, the people might and probably
would change IN respccs to another but
similar law,
A most serious objection to the re-
call OF decisions is that 1t destroys all
probability Of consistency In constitu-
tional Interpretation. The majority
which sustails one law is not the same
majority that comes 10 consider an
other, and The obligation Of conSlsten-
CT of popular decision is one which
would sit most lightly on each reclr-
ring electorate. and the operation of
|4the system would result in suspension
a6r application o. CONSTITUTIONAL gharlc
lAhties according to popalaf NhlPFf = VS.
would then have u system Of sisIie3tds,
ing the CONSTITUTION; to meet special
cases. The greatest of,all despotistns
Isl government Of special instances
But the miln argument used TO slls-,
tain sncR d popular review Of judicial
decisions Is tlat'i IL the people are COM
petent to establish constitution they
are competent to interpret It aud That
this recall Of decisions Is nothing but
The exercise Of the power 81 ii pbf q
tatl0n, 5Tllssis clearly q fa9lllaelo1s ar
[gnlpeEt. Tle Approval Of genegglb lrln: :,
ciples. IN "A constitution rlpn t1eatj one
jiand and The Interpretation QE stat
ute and consideration Of its probable
operation III 4 particular case and its
possible Infringement of a general
principle on the other hand are. very
different things. The one Is simple.
the lAtter complex, and the latter when
submitted to a popular vote as al
ready pointed out, is much more likely
toRbe turned into IN issue Of general
approval or dlsapproval Of thea on
its merits for the special purpose of
its enactment than upon its violation
of the constitution. MoreoyeE, a pop.
ular majority does not adopt Q consti-
tuition or any principle Of It pranenl
its terms until after It has been adopt
ed by q constitutional convention or q
Legislature, and the final adoption is
and songltite be surrounded with such
Checks md delays as to secure DELHI
eration-a1Inotler words5the course of
procedure, 10. tue adoption Of ,copstitu-
flor or amendment is very different
from what the proposed vote Of ma
jority OH constitutional interpretation
would be-
Protecting the Constitution.
Constitutions ought to be protected.
by such requirements as to theIr.
amendment as to insure great deliber-
ntlon by the people in making them,
much greater than one vote Of amert
temporary majority. This method Of
amending the constitution would give
it no more pcrmanence than that of
an ordinary legislative act and&0yld
give 10 the lnpllenable rights Of libcr-
~, private property and tho pursuit
of happiness no more sanction than
that of IN annual appropriation bill.