New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1914-02-04
Redwood Team
Scores Victory
New Ulm High School Trio
Loses The Decision in
Their First Debate
Direct Argument Fine But
yzOpponents Excelled
In Rebuttal.

Last Friday night the New Ulm
High School. Debating team, composed
OF Beata Krook, John Woebke, and
Elizabeth Dougher was defeated in q
very close debate with Redwood Falls
High School at Redwood Fails. Ethel
Werder, Anna Rain and Harold
Knmm we're the members OF the
victorious team. The judges were
Pres. c. Cooper and Prof. j. F. Nc
Cornell, both of Mankato Normal,
and Prof. Frank Rarig of the Univer-
sity Of Minnesota. The team was
accompanied to Redwood by Mrs. h.
G. Hess and Mr.. F. c, Lewis, their
coach.
The contest was to decide the de.
batting championship of the third
Congressional District and was on the
Minnesota State League question:
Resolved, That all Judges should be
subject to the popular recall; <consti-
5utionality granted ," Redwood sup
ported the affirmative and New Ulm
ichampioned the negative just as
vigorously.
TO state the Affirmative's case
briefly; the Redwood debaters declared
that.t the administration of justice in
the United States is no longer as fair
as it should be. The poor man is no
longer equal to the rich man IN the
eyes of the law. Many examples we're
cited to prove this point. This mis-
cargiage OF justice, it was declared,
7coaafTd be traced to the corruptness or
Incompetence of the judges, both
Federal and State. impeachment as
a remedy for these evils has proved q
failure and now the need is felt for q
closer hold upon the Judiciary. The
Recall offers the best possible means
for this control. The recall is fair to
the judge because he is servant of
the people and therefor he should be
directly answerable to the people. 1t
is fair to the people because it gives
them the power to remove undesirable
judges quickly and effectively 1t is
not new or radical experiment for it
has been used successfully in Oregon
and California and has been proposed
for several other states. 1t is simply
the next logical step toward popular
government.
The Negative admitted at the very
start that corruption does exist in our
present judicial system but declared
tn at most of the failures of Justice
may be ascribed to faults of the
sy stem and are not the result of a
corrupt judiciary. The recall is an
impracticable measure. In the first
place the recall has not worked where
it has been tried, either in the case of
executive or judicial officers. 1t is far
too cumbersome and too expensive to
be applied to federal judges requiring
a nationwide recall. Furthermore it
does not strike at the root of the evils
of the present system. The recall
strikes only at the Judge and not at
the system: Long trials, frequent
appeals, expensive litigation and out
worn decisions are inherent in the
system and the judge cannot be held
responsible for these evils. In case
of actual corruption the judge can be
removed by orderly impeachment.
The Mass achusetts plan of addressing
an incompetent judge out Of office could
be very easily extended to cover ali
cases of malfeasance in office that
would not be covered by impeachment.
This plan is simple and direct, less
expensive and less radical than the
plan offered by the affirmative and has
the added advantage of having worked
successfully wherever tried.
The Recall is unfair to both the
judge and the people. It is unfair to
the Judge because he is condemned
without a fair trial, is immediately.
blacklisted without having been
proved guilty and because the issues
in the recall election are confused. It
is unfair to the people because 1t sub
stitutes mob rule for rule of law, the
rights Of the minority are over.ridden
by the. majority and the Judge must
disregard the law and substitute q
rule of caprice.
Finally the recall is unsafe. It must
lower the standard Of the judiciary by
lowering the desiratility Of the Office.
The Judge could no longer be inde-