The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-10-25
THE RULE OF THE PEOPLE.

THE RULE OF THE PEOPLE.
There has been a good deal OF dcma
gogy this year in the matter Of the cry
tha, "the people should rule, There
is 10 dcuial, Of conrsc, b. ANYBODY OF
in any quarters. ut thc fact that thC
people should rule. They not only
should rule in u republic. but they actu
ally do rule in this great republic OF
| the United States; and there l. no rca
son TO imagine that they would rule
any more directly and effectively with
Mr.. Roosevelt as President than with
Mr.. Taft as President. Quite the con
trary. indeed for the people rule more
certainly. more directly, and more con
stitutionally, under President Taft than
they did under President Roosevelt or
than they could possibly do under
Roosevelt If he were again elected.
For. how do the people rule, or how
can they rulc' Evidently, through
constitutions that they ratifv aud laws
enacted by themselves or tho lcgiSla-
tors that they elect. They cannot pos
Sibly rule directly through the cXcru-
tive. because the function of the cXccu-
tive is simply to see that the laws are
faithfully executed. They do not rule
directly in the courts; but the laws
that are passed arc binding upon thc
courts so long as those laws are in con.
formity with the constitution that the
people have ratified as the fuuda-
mental law. II is the function Of the
courts to determine whether statutes
passed by the legislators are in con.
formity with the constitution or not.
If they are, the courts declare their
validity, in case there is contest on
them, and they are enforced. If
the courts find them opposed to the
constitution, then in SO far as the
nonconformity exists. the statute must
fall; so that the people, in enacting
the laws through their legislatures and
through Congress. establish their rule
through those laws, for the executive
department Of the Government, and
also for the judicial department.
II is no part of the function of the
President to see that the people rule;
for the people attend to that them.
selves, through the laws which they
and the Legislators chosen by them
enact; and il would he the duty of Mr..
Taft or of Col. Roosevelt faithfully to
enforce these laws. But the difference
between the two men is that President
Taft would not act except under the
law, and If the law is silent he would
not act at all, properly concciving that
If the people wanted action taken they
would so declare by law and lay down
the procedure which they wish the
President to take. This is the Taft
idea of his functions as President, and
ii is the lawful, constitutional rule,
But Col. Roosevelt S idea is entirely
different II the law is silent, then
his will comes in and he takes such
action as he sees fit. or if he thinks
that anything should he done, even
though the law may not support it. or
even bc against If, he would do the act
he wanted to do. anyway, hoping for
Endorsement by enough of the people
TO claim that he was supported by the
popular voice, From this sort Of eXecu-
tive action it is but a short step TO fur
ther encroachment, and so to the su-
premacy Of the executive over the law
and over the courts, and such has been
the history of mankind in all the diff
fercnt governments that have ever
been established upon the earth, The
masterful executive is the danger. The
people preserve their liberties as long
As they can preserve the supremacy
Of the law and keep the executive from
encroaching. But 10 keep from en-
croaching Is precisely what has been
found TO be temperameutally impossible
for Roosevelt: and it would be impos-
sible for him again could he be elected
President.
That is why we say that the people
rule more directly, more certainly, and
more constitutionaIly under President
Taft than they did under Roosevelt
when President or than they could pos
sibly do under him if ne were to be
President again.