Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1912-03-26

Hes(4 l am proposing merely LHaI III
certain class of cases involving the
police power, when a state court has
set aside as unconstitutional law
passed by the legislature for the gen
eral welfare, the question of the valid
ity of the law-which should depend.
az Justice Holmes SO we'll phrases It,
upon the prevailing morality or pre-
ponderant opinion-be submitted for
final determination to vote of the
people, taken after due time for con.
sideration. And | contend that the
people, In the nature of things, must
be better judges of what is the pre-.
ponderant opinion than the courts.
and that the courts should not be
allowed to reverse the political philos
ophy of the people. My point is well
illustrated by recent decision OF the
Supreme court, holding that the court
would not take jurisdiction of case
! involving the constituticnality Of the
initiative and referendum laws Of Ore.
gon. The ground of the decision was
that such question was not judicial
| in its nature. but should be left for
determination to the other co-ordi.
nate departments of the government.
Is it not equally plain that the ques-
tion whether given social policy is
for the public good is not of Judicial
nature, but should be settled by the
legislature, or in the final instance by
the people themselves?
The President of the United States.
Mr.. Taft, devoted most of recent
speech to criticism of this proposi-
ton. He says that 1t is utterly with.
out merit or utility, and, instead OF
being in the interest of all the
people, and OF the stability of popu-
lar government, is sowing the seeds
of confusion and tyranny" (By this
majority, that is, the tyranny Of the
American people as whole). He
also says that my proposal (Which.
az he rightly sees, is merely pro.
posal to give the people a real. In
stead Of only nominal, chance to
construe and amend q state constitu-
ton with reasonable rapidity) would
make such amendment and interpre-
tation depend on the feverish, I'M
certain, and unstable determination OF
successive votes on different laws by
temporary and changing majorities;'
and that sit lays the AK at the foot OF
the tree Of well-ordered freedom, and
subjects the guarantees Of life. lib.
erty and property without remedy to
the fitful impulse OF a temporary ma.
Jority of an electorate.
This criticism Is really less a criti.
cism Of my proposal than a criticism
Of all popular government. 1t is
wholly unfounded, unless it is found
ed on the belief that the people are
fundamentally untrustworthy. II the
Supreme courts definition Of due
process in relation to the police pow
er is sound, then an act OF the legis'
lature to promote the collective in
terests of the community must be
valid. II 1t embodies a policy held by
the prevailing morality or a prepon'
derant opinion to be necessary to the
public welfare This is the question
that ! propose to submit to the PEG
pie How can the prevailing morality
or preponderant opinion be better
and more exactly ascertained than by
a vote of the people? The people
must know better than the court
what their own morality and their
own opinion Is. R8Eg--
The object have in ~s@-~uld
probably be accomplished by ar
amendment Of the state constitutions
taking away from the courts the
power to review the legislatures de
termination of policy of social Jus
tice, by defining due process OF law
in accordance with the views ex
pressed by Justice Holmes for the
Supreme court But my proposal
seems to me more democratic and,
may add, less radical For under the
method suggest the people may sus
tain the court as against the legisla
ture. whereas, If due process were de
fined In the Constitution, the decision
of the legislature would be final.
Mr.. Taft's position is the position
that has been held from the begin
ming Of our government. although not
always so openly held. by a large
number Of reputable and honorable
men who. down at bottom. distrus'
popular government. and. when they
must accept It, accept 1t with reluc
lance, and hedge 1t around with every
| species of restriction and check and
balance, so as to make the power OF
the people as limited and as ineffec
tive as possible. Mr.. Taft fairly de
fines the issue when he says that oul
| government is and should be gov
eminent of all the people by rep
resentative part OF the people. This
is an excellent and moderate descrip
ton Of an oligarchy. 1t defines oul
] government as a government of all OF
the people by few OF the people
Mr. Taft, In his able speech, has made
what Is probably the best possible
presentation OF the case for those
who feel In this manner Essentially
this view differs only in its expression
from the view markedly set forth by
one of his supporters. Congressman
Campbell. Congressman Campbell. in