The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1912-02-21


II II is sustained we'll and good. II
not. then the popular verdict is to bo
accepted as final. the decision is to
be treated as reversed, and the con-
struction OF the Constitution definite
ly decided---subject only to action by
the Supreme court of the United
| States.
Many eminent lawyers who more or
less frankly disbelieve in our entire
American system OF government for.
by. and OF the people violently an
tagonize this proposal. They believe.
and sometimes assert, that the Amer
lean people are not fitted for popular
government and that II is necessary
to keep the Judiciary independent Of
the majority or Of all the people;"
that there must be no appeal TO the
people from the decision of a court
In any case: and that therefore the
judges are TO be established as sover,
eien rulers over the people. 1 take
absolute Issue with ali those who hold
such a position. I regard = as a com
plete negatlon Of or7 whole system
of government; and II II became the
dominant position in this country. II
would mean the absolute upsetting OF
both the rights and the rule OF the
people. If the American people are
not At for popular government. and
II they should Of right be the servants
and not the masters of tho men whom
they themselves put in office. then
bincoln's work was wasted and the
whole system OF government upon
which this great democratic republic
rests Is a failure believe. on the
contrary with all my heart that the
American people are 1t for complete
self-government. and that. in spite Of
all our faillngs and shortcomings. we
OF this republic have more nearly real
lied than any other people on earth
the IDEAL Of Justice attained through
genuine popular rule.
People Fundamentally Right.
do not say that the people are IN
fallible. But I 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 dele
gated portions of their power. If this
Is not so, then there is no justification
for the existence of our government:
and If II is so. then there is no justi.
fication for refusing to give the peo-
| PIE the real, not merely the nominal.
ultimate decision on questions OF con-
| stitutional law.
n decision rendered but n few
months ago by the court of appeals
of my own state, The state Of New
York, declared unconstitutional the
worlmens compensation act In their
decision the judges admitted the
wrong and the suffering caused by the
practices against which the law was
aimed They admitted that other civ
ilized nations had abolished these
wrongs and practices. But they took
the ground that the Constitution Of
the United States. instead OF being an
instrument to secure justice, had been
ingeniously devised absolutely TO pre-
vent justice. They insisted that the,
clause in the Constitution which fof-i
bade the taking of property without
due process OF law forbade the effort
which had been made IN the law to
distribute among all the partners in
an enterprise the effects of the In
juries to life or limb of o wage-work-
er. In other words, they insisted that
the Constitution had permanently
cursed our people with Impotence to
right wrong, and had perpetuated a
cruel iniquity for cruel iniquity is not
too harsh term 70 use in describing
the law which in the event of such an
accident, binds the whole burden OF
gripping disaster on the shoulders
least able 70 bear 1.-THE shoulders OF
the crippled man himself. or the dead
mans helpless wife and children. No
anarchist orator, ravirg against the
Constitution, ever framed an indict-
ment to II so severe as these worthy
and well-meaning Judges must be held
to have framed If their reasoning be
accepted as true But, as a matter
Of fact their reasoning was unsound,
and was as repugnant TO every sound
defender of the Constitution as to
every believer in justice and right
eousuess, In effect. their decision
was that we could not remedy these
wrongs unless we amended the Con-
stitution (not the constitution of the
state, but the Constitution of the ma
tion) by saying that property could be
taken without due process OF law. II
seems incredible that any one should
be willing to take such a position. 1t
is position that has been condemned
over and over again by the wisest and
most far-seeing courts. In its essence
It was reversed by the decision of
state courts In states like Washington
and Iowa, and by the Supreme court
of the nation in a case but a few
weeks old.
According to one of the highest
judges then and now on the Supreme
court of the nation, we had lived for
hundred years under a Constitution
which permitted a national income
tax. until suddenly by one vote the
Supreme court reversed its previous
decisions for century, and said that
for century We had been living under
a wrong Interpretation OF the Constitu-
ton THAT is, under wrong Constitu-