Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-12-01
LISA DANGEROUS GRANT OF POWER

IS net limited 70 controversies over
which courts. IN The eNereise II thej0
ordinary powers, san take ieTisule
tion.
Controversies such as the Industrial
court e Kansas has jurisdiction II
Such - come before the lnltea States
Labor Roaud, such as GENE befefe ;he
Public Utilities Commission; such as
come before the Tax Comms sion. aud
81 on without epa. are lneludea with
IN the broad language of this seeliou,
and the supreme Court may hy rule
authorize the courts 90 make binding
declarations ef right in al sueh cou-
troVefsieS.
The Supreme Court maN hY raie
authorize the courts 90 make binding
declarations Of right IN controversies
Is 30 wages; as q strikes aud lock
outs, as 10 rates and service Of public
utilities; as II the Naluation of rail
road and other property for taNatloni
aud, II the proposed constitution
should he ratified, as Il What Isl
household furniture used as such, 20
b. exempted from taxation. What are
implements Of agriculture or labor
used as such, 70 be 50 exempted. what
for the purpose of such exemption.
are such deductions as shall eompcn.
safe for taxes paid on property from
which the taxed income Is derived OF
for income tax paid in lieu Of tax hs
valuation or for taxes paid under Sec
ton l1o, lie, taNes imposed on priv.
ileges. franchises and occupations and
what are areas devoted IL forests or
forest culture which may be classiised
for or exempted from taxation.
The foregoing Is only illustrative Of
what the Supreme Court can DO under
this Section l22, II is not exhaustive
To be 50 Il would be necessary 10 set
forth all controversies that could
arise.
II should not escape attention that
no power Is reserved 10 the general
assembly To set aside any rule made
under this Section l22. although such
rules may viially and fatally affect
our rights and liberties as free men
and women; such reservations Is linn
tied TO rules of mere pleading, prae
tiee and procedure
Remember, in considering this see
ton, that the question Is not merely
whether the courts should be given
the powers which Hereunder may be
given them but also whether such vast
and important legislative powerI
should be vested in nine men who are
selected for the long terms of teaI
years to serve as Judges and who
should be elected with q view to their i
capacity to be judges AMI not their
capacity 10 be Legislators.
Proponents Of the new constitution
admit that 1t oonfers vast and unde
fined powers upon the courts which
would be dangerous 10, II not destruc
tive. Of our rights and liberties NJ
ffu~~ssseft asssls @otnen hthsy aheuii
be uuwisely or dishonesty exercised.
but they may, we must assume, thatl
the judges Of the Supreme Court will
always be good and wise men. Thisl
argument, II sound. would lead to the
conclusion that it would be safe and
sane To turn over the entire govern
ment to the Supreme Court WhyI
bother with constitutions and stat
utesg The judges of the Supreme
Court will always be good and wise
Let il be our ruler and LET us have a I
benevolent dekpotism. The trouble
with this line of argument Is that
liberty loving people have learned by
bitter experience, that courts hunger
for power; that they are inclined TO
enrich their powers as far as possible
that judges are not always good and
wise or even honest, that political
judges are very dangerous; that con
stitutions are necessarily made 10 |
protect the people against unwise or
dishonest action by Judges who are
not good or wise as well as such ac
tion by other public servants; to the
end that this shall be a government
of laws and not of men.
These observations Are very perth
ent to the present situation in view
of the fact that, under the proposed
new constitution, the judges Of the |
Supreme Court will inevitably be
drawn into the vortex Of party politics |
by reason Of the power given the |
Court to make vast numbers Of politi- |
cal appointments.