Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-05-19

OF each district, and also. makes it i'm
possible for him to make personal and
thorough investigation of the fitness of
his appointees, and yet there is hardly
member of the commission who would
advocate the election of local federal
judiciary. Not that Presidents have
not made grave errors in appointments:
they have. But by and large we all
know that the results are good. Take
Massachusetts. Every lawyer on the
commission has considerable acquaint-
ance at the bar among the people of
that state. Again it is true that we
have heard criticisms of particular ap-
pointees, but have we not all been im-
pressed with the general and universal
satisfaction which the appointive sys-
tenn gives in that state? The opinion
that the appointive- system works well
is not confined to the members of the
bar of Massachusetts. As far as |
have been able to observe land I have
taken trouble to make inquiries because
] have long been interested in this sub
lect), the satisfaction with the appoint
i've system in Massachusetts is general
among all classes of people. ..
need not call your attention to the
fact that in a state like Pennsylvania.
where we have had the elective system
since the constitution of 1888, there is
very widespread belief that judges
should be appointed. I do not say
that this belief is settled conviction
on the part of the ma jority of the people.
or even majority of the members Of
the bar, but we have only TO ask indi-
vidual members OF this commission to
know that there at least exists diff
ference of opinion on this subject.
There is one argument against an
appointive judiciary to which reference
should be made. 1t is this: With us n
Judge passes on the constitutionality of
acts of the Legislature. The state con-
stitution contains bill of rights. Under
the varying expressions in the bill of
rights it is the duty of the courts to
declare unconstitutional any act which
deprives person of his liberty or prop
erty without due process of law. Prac-
tically this means that it is the duty of
the judge to declare unconstitutional
any act the provisions Of which violate
those fundamental principles of per-
sonal liberty and right to acquire. pos
sess and enjoy property which are the
heritage of English speaking people.
The practical application of these fun
damental principles necessarily vary
from time to time with shifting eco
nomic conditions Thus it is that I
have heard publicists argue that an ap-
pointive judiciary would be apt to be
out of touch with social and economic
conditions, prone to hold legislation de-
signed to meet real and pressing social
evils unconstitutional because of q lack
of understanding of living conditions.
A plausible theory is this. on it's face.
but il does not bear the test of actual
experience.
Take the great social laws of our day
that have run the gauntlet of the courts
II was the elected Supreme Court of
Illinois that held an act regulating the
hours of labor which applied only to
women's labor unconstitutional, though
subsequently that decision was reversed
IL was the elected Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania that held law requiring
wages to be paid in money-thereby
prohibiting payment in store orders
unconstitutional as denying to the
workman the right of free contract. and
it was the appointed Supreme Court of
the United States that upheld the con
stitutionality of such regulation. -.
1t was the elected Appellate Court of
New York which held the first work
mems compensation act of that state
unconstitutional - a decision which
shocked the nation and which was in
stantly reversed by a change in the
state constitution. The appointed Su-
preme Court of the United States had
no difficulty in sustaining workmen' 8
compensation legislation. Il
Those who have been Interested in
social legislation in the last twenty
years know that all advocates of such
legislation have felt confidence that
the appointive federal Supreme Court
and the appointive Supreme Court of
| Massachusetts, were the two courts in
the country most inclined to support
the copstitutionality of legislation of
this character There is a reason for
this. The appointive judge Is more ant
10 have knowledge Of the law, both con.
stitutionel ana ordinary law, than tbe
elected Judge. This greater ksowledre