tical. If our government is a government of checks and balances and the courts may declare a law passed by a legislature unconstitutional, who is to pass upon an unconstitutional decision of the judges? Would it not be a good device in New York to have on the ballot at the next election the question, Is the decision of the court of appeals in the workmen's compensation case constitutional?—and let the people from whom this constitution sprung have as much interpretive power as the judges whom they elect? Does any one doubt but that the people of New York would sustain that law overwhelmingly? If so, what better test have we of its constitutionality? It might be advantageous to have some provision so that in case the decisions of a judge were overturned several times by popular vote, the judge would be subject to recall as being unable to interpret the constitution. The writer is a firm believer in representative government and is of the opinion that the legislature will never reach its highest dignity and responsibility until some device is used to hold the court within its proper sphere.
Think of the confusion that is now arising in our country because of this power! Ten, yes, even twenty years after a law has been enacted, after property rights have grown under it, suddenly there may be a decision declaring that law unconstitutional. Could anything be more conducive to chaos? What has been said above
