class in America, and yet in an article in the Green Bag, October 1911, on the "Judges as Law Makers" he says:
"Our statutes are in great part the work of mere vote-hunters and demagogues, enacted for the temporary ends of politicians or artfully contrived to advance the selfish purposes of unscrupulous men, often the very men against whose wrong-doing they pretend to provide safeguards. At best, they are seldom more than rudimentary, embryonic laws, destined and intended to be moulded into their final and practical shapes by the legislative action of the courts in professedly construing but really completing them."
"Our judges are far more capable than are our legislators to give expression and effect to the people's will; they are also more competent and more faithful interpreters of what is the people's will, because far less liable to be misled as to this by mere outcry from the press or the tawdry gabble of agitators; for, ever since the days of the Three Tailors of Tooley Street, the query: 'What is' or 'Who are the people?' has been matter of debate and often of dispute; and, although it has received, for practical purposes, many different answers in different countries and at different times, the legal 'people,' that is to say, that part of the community empowered by law to speak and act for the whole, has been always and everywhere a minority of all the human beings subject to the 'people's' will."
If this is true, why all this bother about representative government? Why not do away with it at once or turn it all over to the courts?
Perhaps the courts are not all wise; perhaps the fathers who made the constitution were wiser than they may seem to the learned product of our so-called
