isa-normaladvance-1913-00035

Description:	THE NORMAL ADVANCE35W$t Recall anb tfte Jubge*EDWARD QUINNr\0 we believe in a government of the peo-■~ pie, for the people, and by the people ? Or,do we believe in a government of the people,for the people, by the elite? Is the rule of alegal aristocracy any more democratic thanthe rule of a titled aristocracy? Do we havea genuine popular government, when the judiciary can nullify fundamental laws favoredby the people? The recall vs. the judges, asa means of expediting the will of the majority, resolves itself into the above questions.In considering this much mooted question,many people apparently forget that the basicprinciple of American government is, the ruleof the majority. Whether the majority is always just and rational in its decisions, are notbeing considered here. Suffice it that the sovereignty of the people is an established fact.We, as a nation, have repudiated the theorythat the few7 should rule the many that theelite should govern the masses. The peopleare the ultimate authority in the affairs of government. They have the right to decidewhether we shall have such measures as theincome tax, a workmans compensation law, aminimum wage, et cetera. To deny the peoplethe right of expeditiously removing fossil-iferous or corrupt judges w7ho block progressive legislation, is to nullify the fundamentallaw of republicanism, the rule of the majority.Those who still persist in believing that thepeople are unfit to rule themselves, are eitherout of tune with the spirit of democracy, or inconnivance with the predatory interests. Totry to convince them of the feasibility of therecall a.s a means of facilitating the expressionof the popular voice is futile.There are many sincere persons opposedto the recall of judges on the ground that itwill take intricate problems from the handsof experts and place them in the hands of theinexperienced. From the workings of the recall, working under certain safeguard or restrictions—as seen in Oregon and other Western States—we may take it for granted thatthe recall will be applied only for the removalof corrupt or inefficient judges. By inefficientjudges is meant those who are non-progressive those who mete out justice in the spiritof the eighteenth century. Corrupt judges areobviously unfit. Are judges, permeated withantiquated ideas qualified to pass judgmenton the problems of today? Is it desirable tohave a judge, inoculated with fossiliferous notions of justice, and out of sympathy withmodern conceptions of property and other relations of fellowbeings towards each other, decide whether the injured workman shall receive compensation or not? Emphaticallynot! Unfortunately, a legal training generally tends to make a person revere the old because of its age, and distrust innovations because they are new and untried. Just so longas we select our judges because they are expertin the field of law, overlooking their qualifications as genuine social beings, we shall needthe recall.Some of our affable, wTell-meaning statesmen, who are always desirous of relieving usof the cares and responsibilities of government,contend that the recall of judges is subversiveof good government that it threatens the existence of the Constitution, and that it menacesthe independence of the judiciary. Such contentions are mere balderdash. Good government means to Americans, primarily, democratic government. The recall is simply a device for making our government more democratic. To cure the evils of democracy as wehave it, we must have more democracy.Americans have been reared to revere theConstitution instead of respect it. Theyhave thought of it as being sacred, inviolablecomplete in itself, and infallible in the realm
Source:	http://indstate.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/isuarchive/id/34480
Collection:	Indiana State University Archives

Further information on this record can be found at its source.