Southwest Washington labor press. [volume] (Hoquiam, Wash.) 19??-19??, 1923-08-31

tcOntinusd from Page Six,

attempted to set it aside or dared to
disregard it. In this connection ref
erence may be had to the misimpres-
sion that the English judges hold for
life, which they do not. Prior to the
revolution Of 1888, the English judges
held subject to the pleasure of the
king, who could and did remove them
at will. Ever since 1888 they hold
subject to the will of Parliament.
which can remove any Judge by a ma
iority vote without a trial A SINH
lar provision obtains in the COnstitu-
ton of Massachusetts,, and though
Daniel Webster in the Constitutional
Convention of his day earnestly en-
deavored to have that provision
stricken out, It was, and still is, re-
tanned. In practice this power has
been seldom exercised in England.
and never in Massachusetts, but the
power is there, and is a full recogni-
ton of the fact that the law-making
body and not the court is the SUI
preme power in the state to prescribe
it's laws.
Assume Veto in 1903.
The court in Marbury VS.. Madison
declared Though in an obiter die
tum) that it had power to hold an act
of Congress unconstitutional, but it.
did not exert that power for fifty
four years, till the bred Scott case
in 1857 when it held the Missouri
compromise invalid and thereby
turned loose the dogs of war" It
is said that this decision has been fol-
lowed since by the court CONSUMING
the language of the XIV amendment,
which was enacted for the protection
Of the newly emancipated slaves
(Which it did not affect) as con-
ferring such power This is true, UNI
fortunately. But unless the Consti-
tuition made the Supreme Court, or
rather five members thereof, the SUI
preme and ultimate power in the gov
eminent, the decision in Marbury VS..
Madison and all decisions since
based on it, cannot amend the Con-
stitution. The proper mode to amend
the Constitution is through the law
making department Of the federal
government, with the ratification of
the law-making bodies in three
fOurths of the states. In this there
Is no indication that the courts are to
have any power in amending the
frame work Of our Federal Union.
It is solely a matter for the pepole
acting through their duly elected rep
resentatives.
Claim Lawyers Infallible.
There has been q great effort by
lawyers representing aggregated
wealth to arouse to esprit de corps
Of the legal profession, as II to deny
the infallibility Of FIVE lawyers on the
Supreme Court Is an attack upon
the lawyers Of the country. There is
nothing in the Constitution which
entrnsts the control Of our govern
ment to any one profession or call
ing, but If, as some seem to argue, It
should be entrusted by tacit consent
| to the lawyers Of the country, there
remains the fact that on an average
more than so per cent Of the legisla-
lures, and Of both Houses Of Congress
and of the state executives and Of
our presidents have been lawyers, and
to admit that the power to overrule
their action resides in the infalIibil-
ity Of a majority of five lawyers at
Washington, and as to state legisla-
ton in majority Of the State Su-
preme Court, is the greatest reflec-
ton upon the bar instead of an honor
conferred on it. There is never q
session Of Congress in which there il
not more legal ability in the two
Houses and the president than there
is in any five men upon the court
and the same is true as to the state
legislatures and governors and the
state courts. The point is that Con-