The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-03-21

valid or not by IRIS meNnpu eau
be clearly and finally asccrtained the
preponderant opinion Of the people
i which Justice 5toimes makes the test
% due process in the case of laws
Il enacted In the exercise OF the police
/ power. The ordinary methods now In
1 vogue OF amendin the Constitution
have in actual practice proved wholly
L ina deuuate to secure justice In sucn'
cases with reasonable speed, and cause
intoicra bile delay and injustice. and
sthoxs who stand against the changes
II | propose are champions of wrong ana
Il injustice, and of tyranny by the
wealthy and the strong over the weak
and the helpless.
Rcstates His Position.
4 So that no man may NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
] me. lot me reeapitulate:
"a / an, not proposing anything
/ II, connection with the supreme Court
of the United States, or with the Fed
erai Constitution.
90 ! am not proposing anything
having any connection with ordinary
suits. civil or criminal. as between in
dlviduals.
/ (S) ! am not speaking OF the recall
/ Of judges.
i a. / am proposing merely that in
I, - certain class OF cases involving the
police power. when State court mas
set aside as unconstitutional law
general welfare. the question OF the
validity OF the iaw--.which should de-
! faud, ar Justice Holmes so Wen
phrases 1t, upon prevailing morality or
preponderant opinloD--~be suh'hHted
! for final determination TO a vote OF
the people, taken after due time Tor
+ confederation. And | contend that the
neopl.. In the nature Of things, must
I be better judges of what is the pre-
& nonderant opinion than the courts. and
! that the courts should not be allowed
/ Ia reverse the political philosophy o.
| the people. My point Is well mus
! trated by n recent decision OF tne
Supreme Court, holding that the coor,
would not take jurisdiction ~ a case
involving the constitutionalitg OF the
/ initiative. and referendum laws OF ore
gon. Tho ground Of the decision WAS
:, that such question was f4@f W.
/ in It's nature, but should he lett tor
determination to tho other co-ordinate
departments of the government. ie II
| not equally plain that the question:
| whether h given social policy ~ LOT
| the public good Ia not Of judicial
| nature. hut should be settled ny tue
Legislature. or in the final instance by
Tho. people themselves?
The President OF the United states,
Mr., Taft, devoted most OF a recent
| speech To criticism Of this propesi-
4 ton. He S.lA = Al AZ hitIs'S
1 merit or utility, and, instead OF he
Inv In the interest Of all the
people. and Of the stability of popu
lat government, Is sowing the seeds
of confusion and tyranny tBy tins
M, Of course means tho tyranny OF
the majority, that is. the tyranny or
the American people a. Il whole ,
It also says that my proposal
(Which. rs he rightly sees. IL merely
a proposal to give the georle Il real,
instead Of only nominal. chance L"
eenstru and amend a state Consul
| tuition with reasonable rapial'y
| would make such amendment ana
Interpretation depend on the fever
ish. uncertain, and unstable determi-
nation OF successive Votes on dliief-
ent laws by temporary and changing
rnaforities:" and that "it lays the
AK at the foot of the tree OF we'll
! ordered freedom, aud subjects the
guarantees OF life, liberty. and prop
erty without remedy to the iitfnl I'M
pulse OF a temporary majority ot an
/ electorate"
Criticism of Government.
This criticism is really less a crit
eism Of nay propose! than 4 criticism
| of all popular government IL is
wholly unfounded, unless il 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
> or IL sound, then an act of the Leg
islature to promote the collection in
I, terests of the community must bf
. valid, If it embodieS a policy held Try
! the prevailing morality or Il prepon-
derant opinion to be necessary to the
public welfare. This Is the question
- = . H..
pie. How can the prevailing moral
! ity or a preponderant opinion be bet
> ter and more exactly ascertained than
by q vote of the people? The people
must know better than the court
, what their own morality and theiI
own opinion IN, / ask that YOU here
! you and the others like you, YOU tht
: people. be given the chance To state
2 your own views OF justice and public
morality. and not sit meekly by anc
: have your views announced for yo,
} by well-meaning adherents of out
{ worn philosophers who exalt The
I pedantry OF formulas above the vita
needs OF human life.
The object / have in view could
! probably DO accomplished by al
q amendment of the State Constitu
I tons taking away FROM the courts
> the power to review the I-egislature's
determination Of q policy of socia
justice. by defining due process oi
, law in accordance with the views
al expressed by Justice Holmes for Tho
Il Supreme Court. But my propose
. seems to me more Democratic and,
) may add, less radical For under the
+ method ] suggest the people may
t sustain the court as against the Leg.
!; islature, whereas. If due process were
: defined in the Constitution, the de-
0 eision of the Legislature would bt
i. final.
, MIR. Taft's Position.
> Mr.. Tafts position Is the position
3 that has been held. from the begin
/ ming OF our government, although
not always SO openly held. by larg,
Q number of reputable and honorable
1 men who. down at bottom. distrus
t popular government. and, when the.
must accept it. accept it with rcluc
tance and hedge 1t around with ever
I species Of restriction and check ane
balance, so as to make the power
of the people as limited and as IN
effective ~ possible. Mr.. Taft fairl,
} | defines the fssue WHEN lie says tina
!, our government Is and should be
: government Of all the people by !
= representative part of the people
| This is an excellent and moderate
Q description of an oligarchy. 1t de
fines our government As "A govern