The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-10-06
THE COLONEL QUALITIES.

Colonel Roosevelt delivered a speech
I at the Progressive State Convention in
| Rochester, n. y, in which he, as a New
| York contemporary expresses it, "gave
several interesting illustrations Of that
superiority TO trfling little distinctions
either of fact or of law OF which he is
so emiuentiy distinguished. Referring
to the Sulzer impeachment, it is clear
that Colonel Roosevelt would push aside
altogether the impeachment articles as
of no consequence, and would decide
the whole matter simply on tho respect
i've merits of the two individuals, Gov
ernor Sulzer and Tammany's chief,
Murphy. He would put the question
practically in this manner: "Those In
favor of Sulzer say aye,' and then,
"Those in favor of Murphy, say no."
and would let it go at that. This is the
slapdash way OF procedure which Col
onel Roosevelt is led to by his foolish
rant about popular rule and the right of
tho people to recall their officials
On another point, however, yet close
| ly related to the same general idea, the
| Colonel made a distinct shifting Of
ground, Heretofore he has insisted on
tho right of the people to recall deci-
sions Of tho State courts, thus giving
the voters the chance of declaring con-
| stitutional, law which the courts had
! found unconstitutional, and of thus sub
stituting the popular Interpretation for
the skilled Interpretation Of the Judges.
This left out of the question the main
point as it would be presented to the
people. For it is very clear that when
the people might be called u~on to vote
with respect to court decision pro"
nouncing a statute unconstitutional, the
people would not consider in any way
| the question as to the constitutionality
Of the law, they would simply vote on
their desire TO have the law prevail,
without any consideration whatever as
to the constitutionality of that law.
They would vote for it if they liked it.
without any regard to whether it con-
1icted with the constitution or not. and
If they didn t like the law they would
vote it down, and this also without any
regard to the constitution That is, III
stead Of the people voting whether
law was constitutional or not, the peo-
| pie would vote on the merits of the law
as they considered them, leaving the
| constitution out of the question alto
| gether. But if the courts decide a law
| to be constitutional, what then7 Shall
the people have the right of reversal as
| ocn npJ boY %ho
chance to say that it is unconstitu-
tional9 If not, why not9
| The force of this reasoning swept the
Colonel off his original position, and he
now abandons it altogether, On this
| question he said in his Rochester
speech:
l am not advocating that the judges
be coerced by public opinion in that the
correctness OF their decisions be directly
revised by the people, but merely that
the State Constitution be SO amended
| that when the courts declare unconstitu-
tional a statute which 1t would be COM
petent for the people by amending the
Constitution to authorize the Legislatu
10 enact. the people shall at the next
election have right 10 decide whether
or not they want such statute to become
law. and If the majority favor 1t then
the Constitution shall be deemed amended
to authorize 1t, and the people Will have
the benefit OF IT without waiting for
years to formally amend the Constitu-
tion and re-enact Ii and test 1t again
in the courts,
In stating, as he does in the opening
words of that quotation, that he is not
advocating that the judges be coerced
by public opinion, he abandoned the
very essence and core Of his original
proposition. For, not only has his ar
gument been heretofore that the Judges
are to be so coerced, but if they do not
yield to that coercion they will be over.
ruled by popular vote. He now aban,
dons that position, and says that what
he means is that he wants the State
constitutions SO amended that when the
courts declare unconstitutional statute
(which it would be competent for the
people by amending the constitution to
authorize the legislature to enact" the
people may vote that statute up or
down. But first he would have an
amendment Of the constitution making
this process constitutional, which is an
altogether different thing from what
he has been arguing heretofore. Yet it
in no way cures the inconsistencies
which attach to his nostrum.
Gradually the Colonel is being forced
away from his follies and whimsical
foundations, and perhaps when he re-
turns from South America he may be
IN frame Of mind to consider that the
Fathers Of the Republic founded pop
ular government after all, in place of
| the boss-ridden, despotic abortion
which he has been claiming our gov
ernment to be.