in every American scrap "book. On this point
Justice Brown said:
"Large powers must necessarily "be intrusted
to congress in dealing with these problems, and
wo are bound to assume that they will bo judic
ially exercised. That these powers may be abused
is possible. But the same may he said of its
powers under the constitution as well as outside o
it. Human wisdom has never devised a form of
government so perfect that it may not be por
verted to bad purposes. It is never conclusive to
'argue against the possession of certain powers
from possible abuses of them. It is safe to say that
if congress should venture upon legislation mani
festly dictated by selfish interests- it would re
ceive quick rebuke at the hands of the people."
llaving "been dispossessed of the advantages
of a written constitution we have the right to
hope that the men whom wo elect to office will
not abuse the extraordinary power conferred
upon them by the United States Supreme
Court.
It is an amazing bit of logic for a dignified
justice of the highest court in this land to con
tend that a fear that congress might abuse the
unlimited power given it by the Supremo
Court should bo quieted by the reflection that
"the same may be said of its powers under the
constitution as well as outside of it."
Justice Brown says that "human wisdom
has never devised a form of government so
perfect that it may not be perverted to bad
purposes." True, indeed, and 'because the
statesmen of this country realized that fact, hav
ing had it burned into them by the hot iron of
experience, they provided limitations upon the
authority and power of their public servants.
They never dreamed of giving unlimited au
thority to their public officials; and when they
dqyjged this government' and improved it by
pla,cing certain ppwers with the states, when
they denied certain powers to the states and gave
federal authorities certain powers specifically
set forth in a written constitution, resting the
whole frame-work upon a foundation of justice,
liberty and equality to all men and to all see
tions of this country, they devised the best
form of government yet conceived, and their
handiwork was never so much endangered as
it was by the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice
Brown.
In his effort to further quiet those who ap
prehended danger by reason of the unlimited
power bestowed by the Su-
A Sublime preme Court on the federal
Reassurance. authorities, Justice Brown
said:
"Grave apprehensions of danger are felt by
many eminent men a fear lest an unrestrained
possession of power on the part of congress may
lead to unjust and oppressive legislation, in which
the natural rights of territories or their inhabitants
may be engulfed, find no justification in the action
of congress in the past century, nor in the conduct
of the British parliament toward its outlying pos
sessions since the American revolution."
This is sublime reassurance: Those who
fear that an "unrestrained possession" of power
on the part of congress may lead to unjust and
oppressive legislation" in which the natural
rights of men may be engulfed have only to
look at the action of congress during the past
century.
But if this is not sufficient Mr. Justice
Brown bids them look at the "conduct of the
British parliament toward its outlying posses
sions since the American Revolution."
To what a glorious field for inspection this .
The Commoner.
justice of the Supreme Court has invited the
American people I
Under this opinion we arc about to embark
on Great Britain's colonial policy and to re
assure ourselves, to quiet our conscience, wo
have but to look at the history of Great Britain
toward its outlying possessions "since the
American Revolution."
An inspiring spectacle, indeed 1
We may look at South Africa whoro Great
Britain's "unrestrained possession of power"
has destroyed two promising republics and has
drenched the soil with the blood of patriots;
we may look at India whose people have been
dying by starvation for years at India whero
on several occasions the bounty and generosity
of the American people have been necessary in
order to save human beings, living under the
sovereignty of Great Britain, from death by
starvation.
We may look at Ireland, whose population
today is 4,000,000 less than it was in 1841;
at Ireland whose people have been defrauded
of their natural rights; at Ireland whose peo
ple have been denied the highest aspirations
and the purest ambitions; at Ireland whose peo
ple have been burdened with unjust laws, with
outrageous taxes, with infamous decrees; at
Ireland whose people have fled from British
sovereignty or died with broken hearts and
famished bodies. Wherever you go, whethor
you find tho Irishman at home or abroad, yoti
will find a liater of British 'sovereignty and' a
living witness to the 'fact that British rule over
the peoples who are denied equal participation
in British government has been unjust to the
people governed and discreditable to the gov
erning power.
A Republican View.
The St. Louis Globe-Democrat says that
only congress itself can add a word, to, tho
terms offered to the Cubans by the Piatt
amendment or subtract a word from it."
It would seem that the administration or
gans have changed their opinions concerning
the executive and legislative prerogative. We
recollect that when it was urged, prior to the
adoption of the war resolutions, that the
United States should recognize tho indepen
dence of the Cuban republic, it was argued by
republican newspapers and republican leaders
that the recognition of a nation's independen
dence was purely an executive act, because upon
the executive rested the responsibility for send
ing diplomatic representatives to the courts
entitled to such representatives.
Now we arc told by these same republican
newspapers that "only" congress itself can add
a word to the terms offered the Cubans by Ahe
Piatt amendment or subtract a word from it;"
and that the Piatt amendment is the law of ,the
land.
The law of what land? The law of a land
with respect to which both our executive and
our congress have expressly disclaimed the in
tention of exercising the slightest act of sov
ereignty? Whatever may be the opinion as to whether
the recognition of independence is an execu
tive or legislative act; the independence of the
3
Cuban people was firmly recognized in the war
resolutions, resolutions passed by tho con
gress and approved by tho president. In thoso
resolutions it was declared that tho Cuban peo
ple "are," and then to givo strength to this
declaration it was said, "and of right ought to
be free and independent." In those resolu
tions the congress and tho president declared
that it was not the intention of the United
States to exercise "sovereignty, jurisdiction or
control over the island of Cuba, except for tho
pacification thereof," and that, when that was
accomplished, tho island as to be loft to tho
control of its people.
Npw, if tho position taken by Mr. McKinley
and his counsellors prior to tho adoption of tho
war resolutions, namely, that the recognition of
a nation is an executive act was correct, then
tho recognition of the Cuban republic is today
purely an executive act. lias pacification in
Cuba been accomplished? That is the ques
tion confronting the President of the United
States. If that question can bo answered in
tho affirmative then it becomes his duty as soon
as a government has been formally organized
there to withdraw the troops and leave tho
"sovereignty, jurisdiction andcontrol" of that
island to the people who "arc and of right
ought to be free and independent."
The people of Cuba wore not free and in
dependent bccauBC the congress and the presi
dent of the United States said so. That dec
laration was simply tho recognition of a truth.
They were free and independent because thoy
"of .right ought to be free and independent."
Their" rights in this respect did not depend
upon the sanction of politicians in the United
States. Their rights came from the same di
vine source from which our own rights came,
and if they are free and independent, if we do
not intend to exercise "sovereignty, jurisdic
tion or control" over the island of Cuba, then
the congress of tho United States has no more
right to enact laws for the government of
Cuba or for the guidance of its people than it
would havp to enact laws for the republic of
France or the empire of Germany.
The Globe-Democrat warns the people of
Cuba that "an acceptance of the Piatt amend
ment just as written" is all that is necessary to
speedily set in motion a Cuban home govern
ment: But, adds The Globe Democrat: "Tho
Piatt amendment becomes something else when
a single word is added or stricken out." This
position is hardly as generous as the position
taken by the people of Great Britain toward
the South African republic. The British slates
men conceded that it took two to make a bar
gain. They conceded that in order to obtain
suzerain rights in the South African republic
they must have the consent of the representa
tives of that republic. And Great Britain
rested every claim it made, not upon an act of
Parliament, not upon the arbitrary decree of
British statesmen, but upon a solemn agree
ment entered into between the representatives
of Great Britain and the representatives of the
jjouth African republic.
To be sure Great Britain placed its own in
terpretation upon that agreement, but it had
at least the good taste to go through the form
of an agreement, and it had at least the good
judgment to refrain from arbitrarily enacting
laws for the guidance and the government of a
nation over which Great Britain did not pre
tend to exercise sovereign rights. According
to the Globe-Democrat it only takes one .to
make a bargain when that one is big enough
to enforce any demand which it makes.
m
i
i
