The Commoner
WILLIAM J. BRYAN. EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR
.4't&A
w
mi
r
'-V
, t'
"'
r
Sl
VOL. 11, NO, 24
Lincoln, Nebraska, June 23, 1911
Whoki Number 544
a
99
Packing the Supreme Court
A Reminder of 1908
During the closing days of the presidential campaign of 1908 the American people heard considerable about "packing the supreme
court." These things are particularly interesting at this time.
The Wall Street Journal, morning edition, October 15, 1908, page 1, under the heading of "Business and the Election," speaking of the
' possibility of the election of Mr. Bryan and what might follow, said: I
"He (Mr. Bryan) would, for instance, have the appointment of three or four members of the supreme court and through his secretary
of the treasury he could, if he chose, "work much havoc to the financial markets." ,
The Wall Street Journal, morning edition, October 22, 1908, page 2, under the heading of "Eoosevelt on Court Injunctions," said:
"President Roosevelt declares that the Bryan and Gompers remedy is 'an empty show inasmuch as it would bo unconstitutional. Mr.
Roosevelt says: 'Such a law as that proposed by Mr. Bryan would, if enacted by congress, be declared unconstitutional by a unanimous
supreme court, unless, indeed, Mr. Bryan were able to pack this court with men appointed for the special purpose of declaring such a law
constitutional.' "
The Wall Street Journal, Saturday October 24, 1908, page 1, under the heading, "Coming Changes in the Supreme Court," after giving
the names and ages of the members of the court, said:
"The personnel of the federal court of last resort will almost inevitably undergo important changes under the regime of the president
to be elected on November 3. Of course a republican senate will have a. veto power over bad appointments, but democratic victories this
,Vyear and two years hence might whittle. the existing majority of thirty down. toA dangerously narrow margin." ; ..J
The Wall Street Journal, Monday, November 2, 1908, page 1, in column, "Review and Outlook," under the heading, ."A. Measure of
His Power," said:
"If Mr. Bryan were elected president he would have the power of appointment and would exercise it of nine members of the cabinet,
three or four members of the supreme court, as well as a number of circuit and district court judges, ten ambassadors, twenty-seven minis
ters, upwards of a hundred district attorneys, many collectors of customs, and internal revenue, the postmasters of the principal cities, and
last, but by no means, the least, of several members of the interstate commerce commission. As the kind of law we live under depends in a
measure upon the way it is interpreted and enforced, it follows how great the power Mr. Bryan would -possess, practically independent of
congress, to put his ideas into practice."
At any rate "his ideas" would not have been in line with a policy that would permit "undue" burglary or "unreasonable" embezzlement.
A Friend in Error
The Springfield (Mass.) Republican is so fair
in its treatment of public men and of its journal
istic contemporaries that its errors must be
assumed to be unintentional. It comments as
follows upon The Commoner's editorial criti
cism of the supreme court's decision in the
Standard Oil case:
"Mr. Bryan's comments, through his Com-
CONTENTS
PACKING THE SUPREME COURT
A FRIEND IN ERROR
WHY IS IT POPULAR
CULBERSON OF TEXAS
GOOD CITIZENSHIP DAY
JOSEPH W. FOLK ON "THE CRISIS"
"UNTIL THE END OF THE WAR" A
REMINDER OF JOHN P. ALTGELD
DEMOCRATS AND FREE RAW MATERIAL
POPULAR GOVERNMENT
CONCENTRATED CONTROL OF WEALTH
THE STATE'S POWER OVER COR
PORATIONS HOME DEPARTMENT
WHETHER COMMON OR NOT
NEWS OF THE WEEK
WASHINGTON NEWS
moner, on the oil trust decision are highly
critical and go so far as to intimate that recent
appointments to the supreme bench have been
made with an eye to bringing about such a
judgment. This is very bad. He says that the
court is building 'a bulwark around the preda
tory corporations' and this in face of the fact
that the court has been smashing two of the
most conspicuous corporations of the kind to
the best of its ability. Ho commends the posi
tion of Justice Harlan, who would apparently
interpret the law aB searching enough and
strong enough to hunt out and smash every
coming together of capital with or without
monopolistic effect. But If this Is a desirable
thing to do, why did Mr. Bryan In-1908 favor
a federal enactment which would have admitted
to Interstate commerce combinations which
controlled no more than 50 per cent of a given
industry? And If the anti-trust law properly
interpreted aB say by the prevailing opinion in
tho northern securities case is sufficient, why
has Mr. Bryan been advocating substitute legis
lation In regulation of capitalistic combina
tions?" We will pass over the first criticism It Is a
matter of opinion, but when it cites the order of
dissolution as a refutation of the charge that
the court is building "a bulwark around tho pre
datory corporations" it overlooks the fact that
the order of dissolution can be avoided by re
organization, and that the corporation has six
months (during which it can continue to violate
the law with impunity) in which to reorganize.
But tho Insertion of tho word "unreasonable"
virtually repeals the criminal clause of the
statute and cripples it as a civil remedy. But
how can it be so uninformed as to think that
tho remedy advocated by Mr. Bryan would en
largo the powers of tho trusts? Tho plan out
lined in tho democratic platform would bring
corporations under supervision of United States
laws when they control 25 per cent of tho total
product and prohibit control of moro than 50
per cent. If experience showed that a fifty per
cent control would enable a corporation to t!on
trol tho market the percentage could bo
lowered, but some corporations, today control
an high as 75 or 80 per cent of output in cer
tain lines and are not disturbed.
But tho last sentence is the most unreason
able. After referring to additional legislation
it asks why Mr. Bryan favors additional Iegis
tlon if this law Is sufficient as formerly con
strued. Mr. Bryan does not regard it as suffi
cient. He declares it to be INSUFFICIENT,
but he is opposod to taking any backward step.
He would keep the present law, Imperfect aa
It Is, until he can get something bett . Any
thing unreasonable about that?
IN VIRGINIA .
It is reported that some of the democratio
politicians of Virginia are trying to arrange
things so that republicans can vote at the pri
maries. Why should republicans help select a
democratic candidate for the senate? If a
democratic candidate for senator In Virginia
seeks republican votes in the primary it looks
like he was scared and ho does not deserve
democratic votes.
rfllMaaitafa'1 'fi ' iffiihiiiiinnr f-rfrfh" "i 1 1 r -- "i r--- - - "- "-"
rtfe.i Ma-ii,jiL'MCr:'&,mnfl x&LJLrJU-K gA ,
-w . ,h ,,i, fyftfcrVrMAiA 4 .
