Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 21.pdf/610

 The Defeat of Judiciary Reform in New Jersey with two other judicial amendments depriving the Circuit Court of its chancery powers in foreclosure suits and reorganizing the Court of Pardons, and with two more in creasing the pay and terms of office of legis lators and other officers, separating state from municipal elections, and dealing with several points of minor importance, were submitted to the voters at a special election. In spite of the expectations of those interested in judiciary reform both within and without the state, the amendments were all beaten by decisive majorities, all in about the same proportion, only about fifteen per cent of the voting population recording its choice, and the majority amounting to about 25,000. The total vote cast was only 65,000, as com pared with a vote of 467,000 cast in the last state election. The result of course cannot be attributed to the lightness of the vote, as the advocates of the amendments would take as much pains to vote as their opponents, and possibly more pains. This defeat is to be traced to a combination of causes rather than to a single one. The attitude assumed by the State Federation of Labor was most extraordinary. Its counsel, in a carefully prepared opinion, reported that there was nothing in the five amend ments injurious to the cause of labor. The Federation, however, through its various branches, decided to defeat them on the ground that they did not include jury trial in cases of contempt of court where the con tempt has not been committed in the presence of the court. The result was also brought about by the political conditions which have inspired the "New Idea" movement in the state and called forth reformers like Fort, Colby and Fagan. The power of the bosses who had been able to govern New Jersey through a sort of "rotten borough" system was not easily to be shaken. The party machines dared not show their colors, but were ready to fight in the dark. The partisan leaders did not want the separation of state and muni cipal elections, nor the election of Assembly men by districts rather than by counties. The Democratic State Committee and the Republican State Committee, the former in advising resistance, the latter in not ad vising support, may or may not have been deliberately mercenary, but there can be no question of their failure to deal with the subject with unbiased public spirit. The

577

machinations of the party bosses, however, though they may have encompassed the defeat of the amendments, were unable to make them an actual party issue, for in Montclair and elsewhere the Democrats joined the Republicans to work for their adoption. Another factor in the defeat of the amend ments was possibly the distrust which lawyers who have attained eminence in private prac tice, but hesitate to curry public favor, are apt to provoke when any suspicion of their being at work for their own advancement or to further some class interest can be invented. The subject was too technical for the average layman to understand. He was shocked when he read the printed statement that the chief amendment had been drafted by an eminent corporation lawyer. Instead of accepting the judgment of learned and skillful guides, he allowed himself to be misled by the freely circulated opinions of dema gogues, socialists and selfish partisans. The. Newark News, which most ably championed the cause of the amendments throughout, described with some detail the character of the opposition. A week before they were voted on it said editorially:— When the constitutional amendments cam paign was begun, it was stated by Judge Charles C. Black that there was but one logical opposition to the proposed changes, and that that would come from the special interests. He pointed out that these wealthy interests found in the prevailing judicial system an ally to enable them to maintain litigation against their poorer antagonists and tire out the latter in their appeals to the courts for justice. He further asserted that it might be ex pected that these interests would secure assistance in their plan to defeat the amendments by under handed means, and that they would secure aid from forces that would be deceived into working against the best interests of the people. These predictions have been confirmed. It is a peculiar combination that has been formed for opposing the amendments at the polls one week from to-day. At the head of the opposition are men connected with the greatest monopolies in this state. They have aligned with them the Democratic organization controlled by the SmithNugent machine. They have had the satisfaction of witnessing the declarations of labor leaders in opposition to the proposed changes. They have succeeded in securing the silent backing of some of the most powerful bosses in the Republican organization. The socialists have also joined hands with these other forces and have urged the 'common people' to fight under the same banner with these remarkable allies. The Republican ringsters at Atlantic City have also come out in a declaration warning all their friends to oppose the amendments. This is a singular situation, but it is just the one anticipated by Judge Black.