Page images
PDF
EPUB

State in the discharge of the duty which has been placed upon them by the Constitution have to the best of their ability and understanding maintained the charter of the people's liberties that they are subject, not to criticism for perhaps error, but subject to criticism, unkind and unjust criticism, because they have not construed away, or frittered away the provisions of the Constitution. They say that the Courts have failed to meet the obligations resting upon them. Where do they find the evidence of that? The people of this State in the Constitution they adopted provided that before any one of the Judges of this State should enter upon the discharge of the duties of his office that he should take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New York. There is the obligation which every member of the Bench has assumed. He has taken an oath, as the people have commanded that he should, to support faithfully the Constitution. We have had brought to our attention many times within the last year and a half criticism of a decision known as the Ives case. It is not my purpose to speak of that case to-night, other than to say that every member of the Bar of this State who is familiar with that decision knows right well that the opinion breathed sympathetically with the object of compensation. The conclusion reached by the Court was that it amounted to a taking of property without consent and without due process of law. The reasoning in the opinion must have met generally the judgment of those who have carefully considered it. You will remember that in that opinion the Court pointed out, after reaching the conclusion that it was against the Constitution of the State, that the appeal should be made not to the Court who were pledged by the command of the Constitution, by the oaths which they had taken to defend it, and support and not

fritter it away by construction, they pointed out that instead of an appeal to the Court the appeal should be made to the people who have the right to amend their Constitution. We know what has happened, but let me call your attention to a date or two. That decision was handed down on the 24th day of March, 1911, an opinion suggesting an appeal to the people of the State. Within one year and eight months from that date the Legislature have submitted a proposed amendment to the Constitution to the people, the people have voted to amend the Constitution so that the Legislature should be permitted to provide a system of compulsory compensation, and the very next month after the people had adopted that amendment to the Constitution the Legislature of this State passed a compulsory compensation act in pursuance of its permission. In other words, the law of this State as it had stood from the very beginning of it was changed by command of the people of this State made within one year and nine months from the time an effort was made to give the people a chance to pass upon it. I submit that in the light of this precedent and of others which might be cited that efforts ought not longer be made by the Executive and by the legislators to pass doubtful enactments which in their judgment will offend against the Constitution; and I submit, too, that in the light of the command of the Constitution that each Judge shall take an oath of office that he will support it, not fritter it away, that unkind criticism—not criticism of reason, no Judge objects to that, but unkind criticism should not be made of a Court whose members have no motive under heaven other than to support the Constitution which the people themselves have created, and who heed the sanctity of their oaths.

The speaker of the evening has given to the people of this State his very best and patriotic service for a period of

thirty-four years. As a member of the Appellate Division he was practically drafted into the Court of Appeals by the Governor of this State upon the unanimous solicitation of every member of that Court. A vacancy occurring in the Chief Judgeship of the Court he was appointed by Governor Odell to fill that vacancy, and both of the great parties in this State united in nominating him for the great office which he has filled since with such distinguished ability. He has commanded the regard, aye, more, the affection of the members of the Bar of this State. He has rendered a service to the people during all this period unsurpassed by that of any other member of this Court of this State in any period of time. Now, we welcome him back to the Bar with all our hearts, and hereafter you and I, all of us who have been accustomed to call him Chief, will continue to call him the Chief. Judge Cullen. (Applause.)

Judge Cullen, in presenting his address, said:

Mr. President, members of the State Bar Association, ladies and gentlemen, before reading the address that I am to deliver to you to-night, I may say a word. I regret that in that address you, at least that part of the audience which is not composed of lawyers, may find it dreary and tiresome. But on this occasion when by the favor of the members of the Bar of this State I am permitted to address you, I have felt at liberty to criticise whatever I saw militated against my notion of liberty of the individual. In that I have found it necessary to criticise the action of the Court as well as Legislatures and laymen. It is due to my own reputation and to something that is of infinitely more importance than my reputation, the cause which I advocate, that I should state accurately the position of those Judges whose action I criticise, so that whatever difference of opinion there may exist between myself

and them, at least I shall not be regarded as mistating their opinions. These words are not words of apology that the situation requires, but they are of explanation, and with these words I will proceed with my address. That address is on the subject of the "Decline of Personal Liberty in America."

THE DECLINE OF PERSONAL LIBERTY IN

AMERICA

In a recent debate in the House of Representatives, between two well known members, which involved their respective positions on a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, it was said by the gentleman who favored prohibition: "I ask if there is any other question you can name that is of greater public moment than the question whether our people are to be forever debauched * * *. The liquor interest on one side and the temperance, prohibition and moral forces on the other have made it a national question, and he cannot escape the fact." Whether the question is a national one or not, in my judgment, there is a question of far greater moment. That is, whether individual liberty is still to obtain in America.

It may seem remarkable that less than one hundred and forty years after the Declaration of Independence and twelve years less than that time after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States the question I have propounded should be still open for discussion. Nevertheless, unless I am utterly mistaken, there is now a strong tendency in Courts, in Legislatures and, worst of all, in the people themselves, to disregard the most fundamental principles of personal rights. Judicial decisions are made, statutes

[graphic][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »