Evening journal., 1923-02-14

ent 10 convince US tlidA tho NSN'S
ment of a pure Democracy was
farthest from the minds and the IN
ltention of the earnest and thoughful
men who were its trainers. Their
recognized wisdom was such that
Thomas Jefferson called them an
assembly of demi-gods. They had
just fought through a war that was
caused by what they believed to be
the tyranny OF Great Britain, a tyr
amy applied externally by the mother
country 10 her Colonies, but they
had equally in their minds the
danger OF tyranny exercised intern
ally by the people themselves. They
had been etudents OF history and
they knew that in the experience OF
mankind no tyranny had been more
harmful and oppressive than the
tyranny of the mob. They realized
that no government can be perma-
nent and successful unless guided by
reason and deliberate judgment.
THE makers OF our Constitution
did not want a monarchy. They
wanted a form OF government in
which the people should be supreme
in the last analysis. but they were
just as jealous to interpose between
al; the people and the will OF a ma
jority OF them such effective res
traints and safeguards as would pre-
vent all the people from being acted
upon otherwise than by deliberate,
ltelllgent and reasoned judgment.
After having thus lodged the SUI
preme power in the people and at
the same time provided that the
power so lodged must. in is exercise,
be directed through the representa-
tives Of the people and after having
placed about those representatives
restraints, checks and balances 10
further secure to the individual his
personal liberty his right 10 religious
freedom. 70 own property, to labor
and to make contracts, save only as
he may be deprived Of such rights
by due process OF law the Constitu-
ton provides for the creation Of the
Federal Courts wherein Is vested the
power to determine. whether the laws
enacted by the Congress are such as
are permitted to he so enacted by
the provisions Of the Constitution
There are those who sometimes
sneeringly say that the Constitution
today is a very different thing from
what its trainers made; that IT isl
so constantly changing that talk
about its preservation is nonsense.
This idea is fallacious. The Con-
stitution. barring the amendments
that have been made to it. but which /
have not changed its essential char |
acter, is the same today that it was
when framed. II is quite true that
those who framed the Constitution In
the broadest reaches OF their imagin- |
alton did not anticipate that II could I
embrace many OF the powers that /
the Government has drawn to It.
self during the one hundred and /
thirty-fve years that have passed |
since its existence began. It was in
tended and anticipated by its franz
srs that It should be adaptable to
changing conditions OF human so
,iety as the generations of mankind
come and go.
"They realized that no set Of rules |
for human conduct can long persist |
IL they are absolutely infieXible, in |
elastic and unyielding. We must not /
think that we are the original dis |
coverers of the proposition that hu- |
man institutions must change with |
the changes in the conditions Of hu- I
man society. The trainers of the |
Constitution understood this as well
as we, and they made Constitu-
ton with provisions OF so general a
nature that they will yield 10 the
construction necessary TO adapt
them to the changing social condi-
tions.
There Is need. however. that we |
should take thought for the preser-
yation OF the Constitution. II has
always been the subject OF attack.
Dur citizens have fought it from the
lay il was agreed upon in conven-
ion down to date. II has been
ought openly and hiddenly. 1t was
ought in the original conventions
,alled TO ratlfy IL. II has been
ought by the legislatures of the
tates and by the executives OF the
.tates. Il has been fought by Con
,ress. by the executive branches OF
he Federal Government by the
,ulnit. by the press. on the stump,
md on the battlefield. II is inevi-
able that this should be so and per-
1aps essential that It should be 80.
As eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty, so must n constant vigorous :
defence OF our COnstitu-
ton be the price we must pay for
It's preservation. II
In its fundamentals 1t cannot he
improved. II contains practically
all the restraints that can he reason
ably interposed between a tyrannous
majority and the freedom OF the
individual No more than all OF
such restraints is possible and no
less is cafe.
AT the present time the most
obvious manifestations Of the fight
against our Constitution are seen in
a certain lack OF respect for law, a
tendency to adopt devices I, attain !
what is called direct action OF the
people. a questioning OF the justice /
OF the institution OF private prop |
erty.
Attacks on the Constitution are /
not usually in the form OF open .
condemnation OF 1t. but are denials 1
that powers exercised under 1t are |
in fact authorized by it and demands /,
that It be so amended as to weaken 4
or remove the restraints devised by Z
it's farmers to protect the individual I
citizen in the possession Of the /
personal rights guaranteed him by
Il or so amended as TO inject into
Il details of inte- ference with the
conduct Of the individual that should
he LEFT within the realm Of local self