The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1912-03-09

lhi Inns MOI tefn f1r he PUZZLE COCA
in me enforcement lie criminal laT
such eleets lare IL
c9inpl ID tie control of file
slatiires 81 tie state and eengres
and am glad 20 sly that the move
ment for reform hos been accelerated
by action % the state ana national bar
assoeldtians. and we may look for de-
cided progress in the near future.
But these humdrum defects and their
tedious remedies are not Of the spec
taculaF character to call for political
dIscusslo6 or to attract effort from
politicians in the passage OF remedial
legislation. The formidable attack upon
our judi elary now Is that the Judges do
not resi- ond; suficIeltly tepopHlar opin-
don II 81 sdidsthat courts are iIterpos,
ing their obstructive power tbQthe en-.
foreement OF legislation looking TO the
relief Of the oppressed by. declaring
laws unconstitutional and by so called
judicial legislation ID interpreting into
statutes words not intended by the
legislature. do not intend to discuss
these charges, although If reduced to
specific cases It would be easy to show
many of them to, be unfounded. For
the purposes Of this discussion may
admit that courts have erred in this
regard, hive unduly broadened con-
.stitutional restrictions in order to I'M
validate useful statutes or have given
such statutes a wrong construction
How is It proposed to remedy these
wrongs? In one OF two ways either
by the judicial recall or by the recall
of Judicial decisionS' Let us examine
these remedies separately
JudieiaIsReeaII.
In the remedy by judicial recall it
is proposed to provide by law that
whenever a. judge has so discharged
bis. duties as to induce certain per-
centage of the electorate to deem 1t
wise to remove him and that per.
cehtage sigma petition asking his. re
call an eleatlon shall take place in
which the incumbent shall stand
against other candidates, and II lie
does not secure aBplurality of votes
he is ipso facto rem5fed. / hive point;
Z ed outthat undeg dur form of govern;
rnent and constitution many OF the is.
sues arising beforefour courts IRE in
effect issues between the state and the
individual, between the majority and
the minority, cases in which the popu-
lar interest might be greatly excited to
secure favorable Judgment. By this
system the question whether the judge
is to be removed or not is to be left to
that majority that may be greatly
! aroused to secure from him judg-
snent favorable 20 them. Could a sys.
tenn be devised better adapted to de-
priye the Judiciary OF that independ-
ence. without, which the .liberty andI
other rights of the individual cannot
be maintnined against the government
( and the ms ority?,4
{ +. Bat ct. Is said we may hive corrupt
( Judges. How are we going to, get rid
of them? They can be impeached I'm
der our present system. But that is
sud TO be too cumbersome. Well,
amend the procedure of impeachment.
Createsa tribunal for removal of judges
for cduse5 Give than an opportunity
to be heard, and by an impartial tri- /
p1Inab but do not create system by
I which, in the heattof disappointment
over lost cause, the defeated liti.
giants are to decide without further
hearing or knowledge whether the
judge who decides, against them is to
continue In office. lit would be hard
to devise a more urs;st and ineffective
method Of purifyiiE the Judiciary or
one less likely to promote courage Of 4
honest conviction.
Recall Of, Decisions.
Let us examine the other method
proposed for the reform of the judi.
riary. That Is recall of decisions.
By this method when a supreme court
has found lew intended to secure
public benefit to be invalid because it
infringes some constitutional limita-
ton the decision is to be submitted to
vote of the qualified electors. and If
a majority of them differ with the
court and reverse the decision the law
Il to be regarded and enforced rs valid
and constitutional
Tiis is "a remarkable suggestion add
one Which is 50 contrary to anything
In ,goteFAane2t heretofore pcopose''
! CONTINUED on page temp