Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-10-11
JUDICIAL LEGISLATION AND THE LIBEL LAW.

Should judicial decisions be made in a vacuum"
unnfluenced by the current trend of public thought
and public opinion or should the judicial construc-
tons put upon the law accurately reflect the Will
of the people?
In this question lies the two opposing theories
concerning our courts Let it be recognized by all
that our system of laws in America is made by two
classes of Neutrality-suspicious. by legislatures and
legislation by judicial decisions. The legislature
passes a law. perhaps with the accomplishment of
a certain end in view. The courts lay violent hands
upon this law in it's administration and construe
into it widely different meaning, By that deci-
sion the courts make law truly as does the leg
islature
No one will contend that legislature should
be free from the pressure of public opinion. 1t is
highly desirable in fact, that legislatures be
sensitive to the demands of public sentiment and
respond to it in the laws they may enact.
How then can it be urged that when courts are
making law by means of the construction they place
upon the law enacted by the legislature they should
be free from the pressure of public opinion? Why
should court-made law be less responsive to public
sentiment than that of legislatures? Each is MAX
ing law under which we must live and which we
must obey What that law is to be is most GER
tainy the business Of the public.
In trials involving the application of fixed and
interpreted law to the facts of the specific in
hand it is desirable essential that both judge
and jury be free from the pressure of public opin-
ion. The idea which the public may hold concern
ing the guilt innocence Of the accused should
not be permitted to influence decision The pub
lie can not be presumed to know the facts of the
specific to be able to properly weigh them
Such trials should be held in Vacuum"
But when the case involves construction to be
placed by the court upon law, common or statu-
tory 1t Is right that public opinion should express
itself as to what the people wish the law to be-
especially in those where the construction
given the law involves matter of public policy and
vitality effects the welfare of the people
When Mr. ]. NJ Reynolds and Mr.. A. B. NC
Millen contend that the Journal is guilty Of con-
tempt of for discussion the Interpretation OF
the libel laws which they are attempting to crystal
lie into fixed law in New Mexico, through judicial
decision, they contending for the theory OF
decision made in a vacuum" .
The Journal insists that the public has right
to make itself felt and to have such interpreted
ton of the libel laws as the people feel will best
serve the public interest This paper can hold no
view other than that it has as much right to argue
the question of what is wise judicial legislation as
1t has to argue what laws should be enacted by the
legislature
We contend that to uphold the contention Of
these gentlemen that all that have said about a
large group of men, be considered by the court
as a charge by us of all of these acts against any
one person of the group will open the door to SUCH
vcxatious legislation will wholly destroy the free
dom of the press and silence all newspapers on the
wrongs being inflicted upon the people. Let US
illustrate: We have said that the gang in New
Mexico fixed the laws that the mines escaped
their Just share Of the burdens of taxation. Months
later, in connection with the law suits OF the FIRST
National bank against us said that the gang
was after These gentlemen now allege their
official connection with the First National and COM
plain that by the use of the word gang" on two
widely different occasions, both in point Of subject
matter and time that libeously accused them
of fixing the mining laws as to enable the mines
to escape taxation Judicial legislation which fixed
any such rule the libel law in New Mexico would
be serious blow at free government. Public opin-
ion has right to protest against any such con-
struction being placed the law. We have right,
as we view it, to inform the public of the vital
Significance the ISSUE In doing 80 we are guilty
of neither dsrepect toward the court nor con-
tempt Of it.
Laws should be responsive to the public demand
and the public need. Those who would prevent
such responsiveness are the enemies of the people.