U.S.A. POLITICS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1426, 29 April 1912, Page 5

U.S.A. POLITICS.

ROOSEVELT AND TAIT, REPUBLICAN PARTY SPLITy COMMENTS BY "THE TIMES," lly Telegraph Press Assoi-iation—Copyrißllt. (Hi*. April 28. .",.'. p.m.) London, April 27. "Thi> Times." commenting on tlie I're.sideiilial contest, states that no dillVrcneo lielncen (Ik. I'epuhliCiUis and Democrats is hi sharply marked a« that Ix'lween the liepublican party's two wings. Will the licpiiMican party appeal lo the, country as a llailical or Conservative force? Mr, Hoosevelt's nomination would imply a liadkal Hepnbliean ])latfonii, and it; is almost certain as a consequence thcro will be a Conservative Democrat ic candidate. 51 r. Tuft's nomiuatiou will almost certainly produco a Itadical as a Democratic antagonist. The difference between Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Taft, it is manifest, is most acutely in connection with the power of the State Courts. The discussion raises the gravest issues. If the political power which Stale Courts derive from their present rights of interpreting the law be an' offence against the democracy, will not the time come when the political power conferred on (ho Supreme Court by thu federal Constitution also seen an offence? .Mr. l'oosovelt's policy is calculated to raise these speculations, hence the horror wherewith they are met. DISLOYALTY OF MR. TAFT. MR. HOOSEVELT'S OPINION. (liec. April 29, 1.5 a.m.) New York, April 28. Mr. Roosevelt, in replying to Mr. Taft, said that Mr. Taft was giving way to bosses fliid other privileged interests, and that Mr. Taft was disloyal to past friendship, also disloyal to ordinary decency and fair dealing. He alleged that Mr. Taft iva? guilty of crooked dealing, because of his misrepresentation of his (Mr. ■Roosevelt's) attitude on the Trust questions. THE HAIHCAL CURE FOH CORRUPTION". The Washington conc>pondcnt of "The Times" writes thus:— Wmit is the liadicalism which Mr. Roosevelt to-ilny proposes? It can be summed up as an attempt to substitute 11 measure 01 direct popuuir government for the system ot carelully-baianced representative government provided lor in the organic law of the, federal Government and of the, majority of the States. Radicals urge with a great deal of justice that government, aim especially thu government of the .States, tends to-day to be in the hands of unrepresentative and more, or less corrupt special interests. State Legislatures, they say, are often elected by "macliim;" in'rliiences and not l>y popular vote, and by the State Legislatures federal Senators are ehosau. State Executive officials are olten thu creatures of the "machines," which in their turn arc prone to be controlled by vested interests. The convention system, by which nominees for office, iron! the Presidency downwards, are chosen by the parties in National, State, and loeiil conventions, is likewise prone lo be run by professional politician?. Nor aro members of the State Judiciary always immune from corrupt influences. To cure all this the direct intervention of the people, is needed, Let I'nited States .Senators ho elected by the people of their States; lot the elected officials of the State Legislatures and Uxcutives be subject to the recall; let the people have the power to initiate legislation; let laws pitjsed by (he Legislatures bo referred upon petition to a popular vote; and let candidates he nominated by the rank and file of the parties.

More important still, the Radicals would submit the Judiciaries of the States to the sumo restraint. 'Dint is the crux of the whole matter; anil the campaign between Mr. Taft and Mr. Roosevelt will be mainly fought apart from the semi-personal issues already mentioned, upon Jlr. Roosevelt's recent declaration in favour of what may bo conveniently termed the recall of State Constitutions' bv the people. Summarised very briefly, Mr. Roosevelt's point is that the Courts of various States, besides being sometimes corrupt, have, in pronouncing upon the constitutionality of necessary social legislation, more than once been out of touch with the "spirit and needs of the times." In cases of that kind the people should, in the last resort, have tile power to amend the Constitution so ns to ensure the constitutionality of the law in question. The Judiciary, Mr. Roosevelt argues, represents, or ought to represent, the people, just ns the Legislature and Executive do. The ex-Presi-dent has also advocated the recall of judges. With both these proposals, and especially with that concerning popular amendment of Constitutions, Conservatives have taken pained and violent issue. What, they ask, would become of the checks and balances of the Constitution, for the creation of which the. fathers of the Republic have, received to much praise? What guarantee would there be of stability or of justice, were the Judiciary to be susceptible to dismissal and Constitutions to amendment by the vote of a majority? Hedge the process around never so carefully, it would mean in theory the legalisation of Lynch law and Constitutions written upon water. The law is already held in little enough respect (witness the outbreak of crime in New York), What would happen, especially where the ignornnt. alien yot P is large, did the people get it into their heads that the Courts were in the lust resort their creatures i* To argue that as the people have created the Constitution lh<\v ore capable of inlerwetintr it is, they say, absurd, and with this anyone who has studied American Constitutional history must; agree. Xor were judges ever meant to be, as Mr. Ronvovelt now asserts, tlio representative.? of the people. The New Doctrine and the Constitution. The recall of officials, legislation by the initiative and referendum, the choice of delegates to the Xntiounl Convention by direct vote, the direct election of Senators—all these radical measures Jlr. Roosevelt also ndvooiites. Most of then), it may be objected, are State matters. In some States they in already in operation, and ;■.•■ any rate they should hnve nothing to do with a Presidential contest. The point is Hint the strangle is mainly one of tendencies, between the accepted theory of American reprpsen'ntive gorernmVnl and some new theory, tlie outcome of the adoption of which is at best highly speculative. That Mr. Roosevolt hends a school of what way to called advnnced Constitutionalism r<* lone been evident. Thero has alwavs been a fundamental difference between the Constitutional principle* .subscribed lo br this Administration and the last.