his Outlook statement that saying you do not care for another
cup of coffee does not mean that you will not take one another
day. He declared positively that the statement in his letter
on the morning after his re-election was not intended to apply to
anything but a consecutive term; and as to the claims that he
had recently told people he would not run again, he stated that he had
invariably made a distinction between becoming a candidate and
accepting a nomination.
For a day or two before his arrival I had been pointing out
to the severe critics of his Columbus speech (most of whom had
never read it) that he was not in favor of the recall of judges,
but of judicial decisions, and that what he had in mind were not
civil and criminal cases, but cases where the several States had
declared humanitarian Acts passed by the Legislature to be
uncon-
stitutional. Of course in
England there is no Constitution; Par-
liament can pass what laws it sees fit without check. And in
European Countries where there is a Constitution the Courts are
not the final arbiters. I saw that what he had in mind was a
short cut to changing a State Constitution, and the doctrine had
less terrors for me than for most people, the majority of whom
jumped to the awful conclusion that a judge who should let off a
Wall or State St. banker or broker would be liable
under the new
doctrine to be deprived of office by a plebiscite within forty
eight hours. I mention this as a preface to saying that I told
him I had less fears of the further development of popular
sover-
eignty than most of our acquaintance, but that I thought he must
make very much clearer his theories on this subject, though I saw