OCR Text |
Show MET I The Republic's Legal System Wfim THE OUTLOOK has an article on "The H, Flexibility of the Law," which is Jri I advertised as editorial. We believe it 91 1 was the "contributing editor" who wrote it. W I For it seems to be in the nature of a quasi- aJ excuse for certain expressions of said "contribut- nfl lng editor," while he was President, and also dur- Mm ing the recent political campaign. It reviews the m part taken by Chief Justice Marshall and more re- m I cent judgea in interpreting the constitution, and '111 the narrow margins by which the supreme jus- Hfl tices have made some decisions; how the common mm law of England was given a distinct significance 111 by the decision of Lord Mansfield, and seems to ft I be a plea that even the constitution should be & subject to the will of all the people, as expressed 1 1 through the ballot. A suspicion also clings to it i that the same views will be emphasized In a fu- f ture campaign. The article evidently was not "II penned by a trained lawyer. There Is much in it which shows a vast uncertainty In the mind fl of the writer, a seeming impatience that there jil cannot be a short cut to any decision that we H want. The work of Chief Justice Marshall was I not to fix over the constitution, but to bring out H its power and its limitations, as applied to every H phase of our government. That has been tho ,H work of every supreme justice since, with the ad- jH ded consideration that when new questions, such !H as were never dreamed of by the framers of the iH constitution came up, they must be adjusted un- jH der the general powers given in the constitution. !H It is the same way with the common law. Under H it certain laws had been permanently established - and are the law today, subject to statute laws fl made especially to meet entirely changed condl- fl tion. But in the absence of such statute laws M judges have, on occasion, given a new interpreta- M tion to the common law on the authority that all M laws must be In the direct interest of the people. A striking case is that of the first decision of H the supreme court of California, reversing the long established law of riparian rights in" flowing waters. The court was confronted with the fact H that the old law did no one any good In Call- M fornla, while the leading Industry of the state at M the time required an exact reversal of the rules M that for years, if not centuries, had prevailed. Now there is no occasion for Impatience over M possible defects in the constitution of the United States in meeting new conditions, because there M is a way provided for making such amendments, M and the reasons for the delays necessary to do H that are ample; first that tho people may thor- M oughly understand what is intended, and, second, M that whether to grant such amendment -will not H Interfere with long established rules or work a H personal loss to men and companies. H We believe that President Taft thinks some H amendments should be made; we know that ex- H President Roosevelt does; but they must not be (H made on Impulse. They should not be made until H the finest legal talent can be able to report that H such amendments, If made, would not change any 'H vital power of the republic or interfere with the fl acknowledged rights of the people or of corpora- H tions. H |