rge upon the Supreme Court. The courts are always believed to
tend toward conservatism, therefore they are generally supported by the
conservative interest, both here and elsewhere. In this case a dilemma
would be presented. Either the judges would seek to give expression to
"preponderant" popular opinion, or they would legislate. In the one
event they would be worthless as a restraining influence. In the other,
I apprehend, a blow would fall similar to the blow which fell upon the
House of Lords, only it would cut deeper. Shearing the House of Lords of
political power did not dislocate the administration of English justice,
because the law lords are exclusively judges. They never legislate.
Therefore no one denounced them. Not even the wildest radical demanded
that their tenure should be made elective, much less that they should be
subjected to the recall. With us an entirely different problem would be
presented for solution. A tribunal, nominally judicial, would throw
itself across the path of the national movement. It would undertake to
correct a disturbance of the social equilibrium. But what a shifting of
the social equilibrium means, and what follows upon tampering with it,
is a subject which demands a chapter by itself.
FOOTNOTES:
[18] 6 Cranch 135.
[19] New Jersey _v_. Wilson, 7 Cranch 164; decided in 1812.
[20] Coates _v_. Mayor of New York, 7 Cowen 585.
[21] Charles River Bridge _v_. Warren Bridge, 11 Peters 420, 553.
[22] Boston & Maine Railroad _v_. County Commissioners, 79 Maine 393.
[23] Wynehamer _v_. The People, 13 N.Y. 393.
[24] Mugler _v._ Kansas, 133 U.S. 623.
[25] Fertilizing Co. _v_. Hyde Park, 97 U.S. 659.
[26] Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wallace 78, decided in 1873.
[27] 94 U.S. 113.
[28] Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. _v._ Minnesota, 134 U.S. 461,
decided March 24, 1890.
[29] Noble State Bank _v._ Haskell, 219 U.S. 104.
[30] See the extraordinary case of Douglas _v._ Kentucky, 168 U.S. 488,
which must be read in connection with Gregory _v._ Trustees of Shelby
College, 2 Metc. (Kentucky) 589.
[31] Brass _v._ North Dakota, 133 U.S. 391.
[32] 169 U.S. 466.
[33] _The Federalist_, No. LXXVIII.
[34] 221 U.S. 91.
[35] 60th Congress, 2d Session, Senate, Report No. 848, Adverse Report
by Mr. Nelson, Amending Anti-trust Act, January 26, 1909, page 11.
[36] Standard Oil Company _v_. United States, 221 U.S. 1.
[37] United States _v_. American Tobacco Company,
|