The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-12-01
IoNTRoL OF THE COURTS.

|kJPk k,,,, p,,le aud the Judiciary: an TX
F4r instjon NJ Current Proposals for Con
[,,.irTsI change Affecting the kela
,coHn oy courts 10 Lerialauo by WI
-, / Ransom Of TIA" NCw YORK Bar.
t,h an Introduction by Theodore
-Snscvci,. published by Charles Serb
|ng h,F's Sons. New York
his is legal argument, in so far
p Nus sucb legal argument can be made,
boz .,,pnort of Colonel Roosevelt 5
Bpt B asosition for recalling judicial dc
icr q ms: and vet IL is not radical, for
Of dlanthor expressly says that be does
,as see bis way clearly TO accept the
4 Scal view nor yet the ultra-con-
|e prslative view that would crystalize
per. iudicial decision into fixed
!, upII uualtcrablc as the laws of the
|r refies and PcrsianS; and he says
Er ~ although thc release that 10 eyi-
self fly sought i ''not definitely nor
|ih rfly formulated. perhaps, but none
|add,.I less positive and unmistakable.
IL a, N has come the feeling that the
|atio, \ of the matter lies somewhere in
oman, middle ground. Heretofore, the
liam, ,ho1 Of reversing judicial dc
Inc b,,)n has taken the form of changing
|Tr Jcourt. either by electing or ap.
ii na,tiug some other judge as the, term
he obnoxious one expires, or by so
L H.. tpinp the conditions of the coun
|po,,' That the former ruling no longer
! ry snossible and the reasoning no longer
yo,ihuies. OF the latter form, the Dred
hns III decision is the leading example.
IL y lhat case the court held the laws
kna se, even in free States, against the
ss, dom Of the negro; but when the
cr.Sle got through with their work on
|, naf decision there was not only no
hSs thing as negro slavery under any
/ H. ensc, even in the most temporary
I'm, in a free State, but slavery was
'~' tshed in all the States.
h, has frequently been suggested
[Va change OF the court would at
.sses bring different decisions, and
.s re have been charges that the
,ags "s ges even Of the Supreme Court OF
,ApY United States were appointed by
a.. son of their known views upon the
iN ome tax, or upon some other vital
oes asurc of public policy. However
Us may be, il is certain that the
|Vo.irt has from time TO time reversed
.,plf on the income tax question, on
~ question Of legal tender currency,
FaeyI on other subjects. The most re
,an ,au 1t instance is the ruling of the SUI
l,| me Court upon questions relating TO
spet Sherman antitrust law, where the
|I' ,'irt as some held, read into the law
az word reasouable;' but after all,
II a court is 10 determine any ques.
|iea2h at all il must determine that
sstion reasonably; and although
II Of court had expressly refused IN
he sner eases arising under that law to
|!oe,ge expression TO the word Sreason-
sNe' in constituting the alleged Of
tine 'ses complained of in the action,
+ caIf court, nevertheless, did use reason
hand teaching the conclusions that il did {:
cry that is ALL, as "A matter of fact,
Tsd ! the court did in the recent anti
thcst cases, upon which so much out
hIwas made.
pa, c1nder the new agitation the old
IN. Ness Of getting reversals of the
% vsrt seemed too Slow and uncertain
|he gths strenuous generation; and yet,
wifser our system of government, there
r anlio OF her way of reaching the courts
Inc itn the way in which they have
|eat % reached III the past Great
sers are found differing radically
the legal questions that are ruled
|p Of q by the courts, and il might not
s;b, difficult at times 10 change entire
The opinion Of the court by
Systematically filing the vacancies
E crcfh lawyers who as Judges, would
siar fgree with rulings previously made
L.s is the swIftcSt and most radical
|,m: ns.' that can be bad under our system
|Dnea goVerumcnt for changing court de-
OF or IONS; but TO the credit of the Presi-
boouts of the United States, il must
|nanS said that there has been no fragrant
ls'tance OF ''packing the court -
|nc1n q a view to obtaining either an
degIna decision upon any point or Il
Fd 'rersal OF former doctrine deliv.
ia from the court
|opcaFhe Roosevelt idea. Of course, is a
|ls Gde political idea. having nothing to
wlth any weil,cousidcred legal
npleans Of relief; but the author Of this
|esI 1k rs cautious, conservative, aud his
FOL is that something better than the
|ersn,seFtsln and often tedious process of
|us y past IN correction of obnoxious de-
|crly 1ons, ought 10 be woven into our
is cueture of government, and he gives
refu and sound reasons for this view,
yholt sons which very few will be found
Rlcombat, always provided that the
thods OF reaching the aim sought for
rkenif regular and not auarchistic. are
HW'elopments rather than oyerturus.
ha iSnth this understanding, tho propo.
zion Tor moro speedy means of re
|sl eaising obnoxious decisions that have
In DE got around some way in order
EactGsthe Just ana regular procedure Of
| nee ndness TO have its course. is roasopy.
[ern %. But after all, in this whole dis
mv5hon the controlling, convincing fact
|babitshs TO be lost sight of, that by
|Irvips Eressional and legislative action,
p. alcourts can be absolutely controlled
sir Aneb statutes coustitutiopally
F; F;,esitp ped and passed,
nrsli he work is calm, ttourhtfuI
Ss;u mission, presenting fairly and
s,bcr hrely n subject that is cuCagjng
80 Of II much Of the best thought Of the
bss yeptry, and presenting the view that
'' Ta,tA Aapge is not necessarily destructive,
and that judicial decision is seldom
ssitped to bo ranked az an oracle OF
IN upi,f
in MpRIES ANSWER THE ''WHY?''