New-York tribune., 1912-03-07
CALLING TT BY A MLDER NAME.


-----
CALLING IT BY A WLDER NAnE.
In his latest "Outlook" article Colonel
Roosevelt seeks to cOnciliate the public
toward his recall of judicial decisions by
changing its name. He has no objection,
he SAYS, to having it called a shorter
"and simpler way of amending the con-
"stitution." OF course not. Named thus
it sounds quite harmless. But the only
fault with the name is that recalling
Judges decisions will not amend consti-
tutions. 1t may be short and simple
way of overriding constitutions, of de-
clining TO be bound by their restraints
and Of making their provisions of no ef-
feet. But if the people of this state,
beiT inflamed against some man, over
rule the courts and vote that an act
taking his property without just COM
pensation is constitutional, they have not
amended the constitution Its prohibi-
tion Of taking private property for pub
lie use without just compensation re-
mains unchanged They have merely In
their wrath voted to pay no attention to
that prohibition so far as it affects the
property of q single individual. Other
persons would be safe from such acts,
except by the same process by which this
supposed one was validated, or by the
| intimidation Of the courts so that they
did not dare continue protection TO indl-
vidual rights. Thus, instead Of amend
| ing the constitution, the people would by
! Colonel Roosevelt's system have merely
voted not to be bound by 1t, which is
morally very different thing.
If the recall Of decisions were only a
new and easier way of amending consti-
1 tutions it would possess little or no In
| terest or attraction for the people Of
most states, since state constitutions are
generally easy to amend. The public has
never complained of difficulty in amend
ing the constitution Of this state. On the
contrary, the opinion has been some
times expressed that it is too easy TO
amend. Almost annually number Of
amendments are offered TO the people
regarding which the utmost Indifference
is usually exhibited in public discussion
and at the polls. If the constitution were
not changing rapidly enough to suit pop
ular opinion. the process Of change would
| not be so much a matter of Indifference
| as it is, and supposedly popular PROPOSE
| tions would not be so frequently voted
down. But the fact Is that the people
get, and quickly, too, every modification
that they really want and a good many
more that they care little about There
are some states, to be sure. in which
amendment is too difficult, but the rem
edy in those states is to make the proc
ess easy, as it is in New York.
Colonel RoOsevelt's recall as a means
of amending the constitution is also open
to the objection that under it the ques-
tion Of constitutional policy, instead OF
being presented simply and directly TO
/ the public, would be complicated by per-
sonal and emotional considerations. In
stead of voting solely upon the question
| Of continuing one Of the constitutional
restraints, the people would have upper
most in their minds the loss Of John
Joness leg and the sufferings that were
entailed by his being without a legal
remedy. Everything else would be OBJ
scured by the human side of the legal
case in which the public was asked to
overthrow the courts decision. The pol
! icy of whole state would be presented
| for consideration in the worst possible
way, namely, as it worked in a single
instance-perhaps an exceptional in
| stance.
Nor, if we concede for the purposes Of
the argument that Mr.. Roosevelt's plan
does amount to amending the constitu-
ton, is it so simple" a way as its author
would make out To take a concrete
example had Colonel Roosevelt's scheme
for the ''recall Of decisions" prevailed In
this state the people might have over
| thrown the decision Of the Court of Ap-
peals against the Wainwright compensa-
| tiOn law. Had they done So they would
have made a law constitutional pro-
viding for compensation to workmen
only in certain dangerous trades. A
broader compensation law, applying TO
other trades, would not have been made
possible by that vote When the state
reached the conclusion that an extension
Of the compensation principle was desira-
bic, if the court adhered to its view, as it
well might, since even the authors of the
Wainwright bill conceded that it would
be unconstitutional to include under it
other than dangerous trades, another re-
call would be necessary to establish the
constitutionality of further law. An
amendment to the constitution such as is
now proposed in this state would make
both these laws constitutional and others
of similar purport. Where, then, is the
saving in process which will often re-
qulre two or even a series Of popular
referenda to accomplish what is now
readily and quickly accomplished with
single popular vote?