The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1912-03-01

Legislature. II such law duly
dealing with the collective interests
OF the community as a whole, passed
by the Legislature and signed by the
governor, is declared unconstitutional
by the court, ! ask that the people be
given the right, of they choose to ex-
ercise that right, themselves to pass
final judgment upon'the proposition.
1T has been stated that this will
substitute popular within, the whIm OF
a moment, for the decision of the juu.
iciary Consider my proposition for
a moment. In the first place, the
House that has to pass the law has
to be elected. Then the law is intro
duced into committee and threshed
out before that committee. Then ii
goes to the House, is argued to and
fro and passed by the House. II then
goes up 10 the governor, arguments
for and against 1t are put before him,
and receives his signature. 1t then
is tried in the courts, and 1t cannot
possibly come 10 the final court be-
fore six or eight months. 1t is then
argued before that court, the court
makes Its decision again, going over
the case in full, and stating the rea.
sons for its decision. By that time
over year will have elapsed.
MY proposal is that then, II the
court has decided that the Legisla-
ture plus the executive has exceeded
the power granted by the people to
them under the constitution, that the
people shall themselves have the
right 20 say whether their respresen-
tatives in the Legislature and the
executive office were right, or whet-
her their representatives on the court
were right Provision should be
made that no vote could be had save
at regular election not less than
six months distant after the appeal to
the people is made In that case you
see that the minimum time would be
two years of discussion by the people,
two years of discussion which would
include the first election, which would
include the discussion before the COM
mittee, which would include the dis
cussion before the House, which
would include the discussion before
the governor, which would include
the discussion before the court, which
would include the decision of the
court, and which then would include
the six months discussion before the
people finally and definitely acted.
There would have been two years
discussion, two years time for the full
lest deliberation and consideration,
and that being the case, il is an obv-
ious absurdity to say that am pro-
posing to submit such action to pop
ular whim, TO the frenzy OF mo-
ment. A moment that lasts two years
is a long moment If in two years
the people are not able to make up
their minds about a question, then |
am sorry for the commonwealth OF
which they are citizens, and the posi-
ton take in these matters is that OF
your own Massachusetts, justice on
the supreme court, Mr.. Justice
Holmes, when he says in a recent de-
cision in the Oklahoma bank case
and / quote his words verbatim-1t
may be said in a general way that
the police power extends TO all the
great public needs. II may be put
forth in aid OF what is sanctioned by
usage or held by the prevailing NOR
ality or by strong and preponderant
opinion to be greatly and Immediately
necessary to the public welfare.
Justice Holmes has put the claim
for the exercise of the police power
by the state even more strongly than
ever | have put II in advocating its
exercise, and that opinion OF Justice
Holmes was given in handing down
the decision Of the supreme court OF
the United States. and that opinion is
now part of the supreme law OF the
land All | advocate is giving the
people of the several states the right
TO put that opinion into practical ef-
feet as part OF the law OF the state II
the state court declines to follow the
example of the supreme court in that
matter, declines to adhere TO the
doctrine thus laid down by Mr.. Justice
Holmes. a doctrine which is now part
of the law of the nation.
IF the state courts. II the supreme
court OF the nation, in its past his
tory, and If the several state courts
had lived up to the doctrine which Is
laid down by Mr.. Justice Holmes,
none OF the decisions OF which ! have
complained could have been made,
not one of them, and there would
have been no need OF advocating the
measure that ! advocate. But, taking
my own state, the court OF appeals OF
the state of New York in the work
ingman's compensation act case re-
ferred in their opinion to this very
decision, to the very language ] have
quoted and refused TO follow II. The
supreme court held one view, the
court of appeals OF the state took the
other view, and all ask is that the
people themselves such case shall
be given a chance to declare whether
they will stand by the supreme court
OF the nation when II stands for hui
man rights or by the chief court OF
their own state when II stands against
human rights. II that is a revolution,
make the most OF II.
some people speak as II there
were some peculiar sancuty in a 1u-
dicial opinion in such n matter as
this. Very we'll; in which opinion?
Which is the sacred opinion? The
decision Of the supreme court that |
have quoted or the decision OF the
state court that conflicts with It.?
They cannot both he sacred, and !
hold that the decision that holds for