The Washington herald., 1912-03-09
TAFT AT TOLEDO
OPPOSES RECALL
continsed from Page One.

ever a Judge has so discharged his duties
as 20 induce a certain percentage OF the
electorate TO deem Il wise to remove him,
and that percentage sign a petition ask
ing his recall. an election shall take
place in which the incumbent shall stand
I against other candidates; and IL he does
not secure q plurality OF votes, he is
| IpsO facto removed. ] haze pointed out
that under our form of government and
Constitution many OF the issues arising
before our courts are in effect issues be-
tween the State and the individual, be-
tween the majority and the minority
cases in which the popular interest might
be greatly excited to secure a favorable
Judgment.
Would Take Away Independence.
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 a
Judgment favorable to them Could
system be devised better adapted to de-
prive the judiciary of that independence
without which the liberty and other rights
OF the individual cannot be maintained
against the government and the majority?
Let us examine the other method pro-
posed for the reform OF the judiciary.
That is a recall of decisions. By this
method, when a Supreme Court has found
n law, intended to secure public benefit,
to be invalid because II infringes some
constitutional limitation, the decision is
to be submitted to a vote Of the quail
fled electors, and IL a majority OF them
differ with the court and reverse the
decision. the law is to be regarded and
enforced as valid and constitutional
This is a remarkable suggestion. and
one which is so contrary to anything in
government heretofore proposed that II
is hard to give Il the serious considera-
ton which 1t deserves because of its ad-
yocates and of the conditions under
which II is advanced.
Argument Is FaIIacIous.
But the main argument used to sus-
tain such a popular review of judicial
decisions is that II the people are COM
petent to establish a constitution they
are competent to interpret It. and that
this recall Of decisions is nothing but
the exercise OF the power OF interpre-
tation. This is clearly a fallacious argu-
ment. The approval OF general princi-
pies in a constitution, on the one hand.
and the Interpretation OF a statute and
consideration Of its probable operation in
a particular case and its possible in
fringement of a general principle, on the
other hand, are very different things.
The one is simple, the latter complex;
and the latter when submitted to a pop
ular vote, as already pointed out, Is
much more likely to be turned into an
issue OF general approval or dlsapproval
Of the act on its merits for the special |
purpose of its enactment than. upon its
violation Of the Constitution. Moreover. |
a popular majority does not adopt a |
constitution, or any principle OF II, or !
amend its terms, until after it has been |
adopted by q constitutional convention |
or a legislature, and the final adoption ]
is and ought to be. surrounded with |
such checks and delays as to secure de-
liberation. In other words, the course |
of procedure in the adoption Of con- |
stitution or amendment is very different |
from what the proposed vote of a ma
jority on constitutional Interpretation |
would be.
II have examined this proposed meth !
cd Of reversing judicial decisions on con-
stitutional questions with care. 1 do not |
hesitate to say that IT lays the ak at
the foot OF the tree of well-ordered free
dom and subjects the guarantees OF life. /
liberty. and property without remedy to
the ftsul impulse OF temporary ma
jority OF an electorate"
President Taft. before taking up the
speech he had prepared for the occasion.
digressed to discuss theN disappointment |
that had come to him through the action
Of the United States Senate in amending, /
beyond recognition, the arbitration treat
les which had been negotiated with
Great Britain and France
Last night I met with a great disap-
he said, as he had said. both