The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1921-09-02
Continued From Page -

ana the plcSluGuJ, NOl vi IaIuiN W
receive the approval Of the Presl-
dent had been again passed by
two-thirds vote in each house, that
it was conclusively presumed to be
in accordance with the constitution
and that if it was not congress
would express the public opinion to
that effect by repeating the act.
An act so entirely unprecedented,
except in the case of Chief Justice
Tressilian, in all the other countries
and so directly in conflict with the
language of the United States con-
| stitution which bestows no such
powers upon the courts, was bitter
! Nv denied when first asserted and
has been questioned ever since.
When the court so held on a
memorable occasion, Andrew Jack
son tersely said, 80 John Marshall
has made his decision, has he? Now
let US see him execute it." And it
was never executed but remained
always a dead letter. The same
was the practical result in the bred
Scott case and when congress an
ticipated another attempt to set
aside statute congress passed an
act forbidding the supreme court to
take jurisdiction and it obeyed in
the "McCardle case" "a U. S. e
WalD SOC.
1t will be asked upon what basis
then has the doctrine of the judicial
veto rested ?" On an argument
once when counsel had made a bold
statement the judge asked the OPP
posing counsel to state his reasons
in opposition. He replied: THAT
statement which seems to have i'm
pressed your honor rests solely up
on the imperturbable perpendicul-
arity of assertion on the part OF
! counsel for the other side" Those
who stand for self-government and
the right of the people to enact
| their own laws subject to approval
by themselves as to the constitu-
tionality and the desirability of leg
islation, may well reply that the
question of the superiority of the
courts over the wisdom and integ
rity Of both houses of congress and
the President has no basis save in
the imperturbable perpendicularity
| of assertion by a majority of the
| court in assuming authority IN their
own behalf not warranted by any
intimation in the constitution and in
! direct conflict with its provisions
which provide that the enactment of
congress, with the approval of the
President, SHALL BECOME LAW"
subject, of course, to repeal by
the representatives of the people
but not by a majority of any court.
The constitution recognized the
advisability of a qualified restriction
upon the Legislative power by Civ
ing the executive the veto, but did
not make that veto absolute, sub
| ecting it to be overruled by the
sober second thought of congress if
it adhered by two-thirds votes to
its former action. 1t is the height
of unreason then to suppose that
the constitution could have given
the power of an absolute or ire
viewable veto when it has not been
expressly conferred.
No power more fatal to govern
ment by the people could have beer
devised, for unlike the president anC
the congress, the judges are moi
elective nor are they subject to re-
view by the sovereign power, the
people, by their terms being limited
On the contrary, they are appointed
to office and hold for life. Fol-
them to take the veto power is tC
assume arbitrary supremacy in the
control of government. We cannot
assume that they will not err in
their construction of the constitu-
ton, since the very basis of their
assumption of the power is that
both houses of congress and the
president have erred in the particu-
lar matter before them. Besides that
court held the legal tender law il
legal and then held it legal. They
held the income tax legal for g
hundred years and then held it il
legal. They have reversed numer-
Gus decisions of their own. court
thereby holding that the court is
not infallible.
Moreover, they have repeatedly
held an act invalid by majority OF
one vote. This rests the govern
ment not upon the intelligence and
integrity of both houses of con-
gress, with the approval of the
president, but upon THE INFAL.
|
UPON THE COURT"
With such tremendous power
without any expression in the con-
stitution comforting it, and its de-
cisions dependent in the last analy-
sis upon "the odd man" in a body
holding not by election but by an
pointment and for life, is it any
wonder that great aggregations OF
wealth have always been influen-
tial in selecting the repositories OF
that irreviewable and arbitrary
power and that while men of intel
ligence and high personal character
have been selected as judges, most
Of them have been from the class
which achieved their high places at
the bar as representatives of the
great vested interests, and THEN
very integrity causes them to view
questions after they reach the bench
from the same standpoint that they
contended for vehemently at the
bar, which views had influence with
those who supported their selection
for appointment?
Power so vast, so irreviewable, SO
arbitrary and so utterly at vari-
ance with precedent and without
authority in the constitution can
not fail sooner or later to cause
serious, if not fatal, embarrass-
ment. It did so in the bred Scott
case and it took four years of war
and three constitutional amend
ments to cure it. 1t did so when
the court reversed by a change of
one vote, the decision by which,
following the precedents of a hun
dred years, it had upheld the in
come tax. 1t took the people of