The Commoner.
OCTOBER 27, 111
9
J 2"-
.k.
An Opportunity for President Taft
1 ,"!'
TO THE PRESIDENT: You are about to select a successor to
the late Associate Justice John M. Harlan. This will be the fifth
associate justice chosen by you, not to mention the privilege you had
of naming the chief justice. The Commoner has repeatedly urged
you to make public the recommendations, written and verbal, upon
which you appointed Justices Lurton, Hughes, Van Devanter, Lamar
and Chief Justice White. While you are making up your mind as
to the advisability of complying with this suggestion you will have
opportunity of giving complete publicity with respect to the selec
tion of Justice Harlan's successor. The Commoner suggests that
you make public all the recommendations, written and verbal, given
you with respect to the appointment of an associate justice to take
Justice Harlan's place.
You can not fail to observe the high estimation the people place
upon the public services of Justice Harlan. You can not be unmindful
of their anxiety that his successor be a man upon whom the special
interests may not count in the rendering of judicial decrees.
The people are watching this appointment, Mr. President. Will
you take them into your confidence?
Challenge and Counter Challenge Mr. Taft
and Mr. Bryan
Louis F. Post, in The Public (Chicago) : Early
In his campaign tour for a second nomination
Mr. Taft fell Into the temptation to challenge
William J. Bryan personally to name an example
of restraint of trade which ought to ho con
demned and would not be condemned under the
supreme court's interpretation of the anti
trust law. Mr. Bryan answered him promptly
and -conclusively as long ago as the 25th of
September in a press interview from Knoxville,
and on the 29th in The Commoner; but with the
supreme indifference to the amenities of .fair
discussion, Mr. Taft professed in a later cam
paign speech (at Pocatello, Idaho, on the 6th
of October) that Mr. Bryan had made no re
sponse to his challenge. It will be surprising
if he ventures a repetition of those tactics after
The Commoner's second reply, which has In
part been published broadcast. Not only does
Mr. Bryan again respond courteously and can
didly to Mr. Taft's challenge, but he makes 8
counter challenge which Mr. Taft may find it
safer to ignore than to experiment with
In his first answer to Mr. Taft's challenge,
Mr. Bryan replied that "any and all trusts,
contracts or restraints of trade, according- to
the whim and pleasure of the trust sympathizer
occupying at the time a seat on the federal
bench" would "be absolved under the supremo
court decision;" and he followed this generali
zation with citations which make It prudent,
even if unfair, for Mr. Taft to profess to have
had no reply at all. Mr. Bryan also asked ques
tions impudent no doubt In Mr. Taft's estima
tion, but certainly not impertinent. Why did
Chief Justice White reiterate and emphasize in
the recent trust case his dissenting opinion in
a case that went against him years ago? Why
did President Taft appoint supreme court
Justices who could be depended upon to reverse
that earlier view of the court and turn Justice
White's dissenting opinion of that time Into
Chief Justice White's controlling opinion now?
Why did Chief Justice White write In the later
case an opinion so exhaustive on a point not
necessary for deciding the particular issues be
fore the court? Why did Justice Harlan think
It necessary to write a strong protest against
the opinion of the chief justice, although ho
joined in the decision? These are among the
Questions Mr. Bryan asked in his first reply to
Mr. Taft's challenge. His citations included one
from Mr. Taft himself which must have made
that candidate for renomination squirm a bit
It is quoted from his message to congress of
'jfanuary 7, 19 It), and exhibits Mr. Taft as in
tjerms opposing the injection by congress of the
VfOrd "reasonable" into the anti-trust law. Mr.
Taft said that this would "put into the hands
tif the courts a power impossible to exercise on
any consistent principle which will insure the
uniformity of decision essential to just judg
ment." Yet Mr. Taft now approves the injec
tion by the supremo court into that law of that
yery word and with identically that effect.
Bryan's second answer, Taft having ignored
Ijis first, cuts deeper still. It appears in The
Commoner of October 6th, in response to a
repetition by Mr. Taft of his original challenge,
(which he coupled with some of his choicest
denunciations of criticisms of the supreme
court, evidently alluding to. Bryan, as "glib."
Mr. Bryan here reminds Mr. Taft that the latter
"knows that Mr. Bryan has only reiterated the
criticisms contained in the dissenting opinion
of Justice Harlan and in the report of the
sonato judiciary committee filed by Senator
Nelson three years ago," wherein Justico Harlan
and Senator Nelson pointed out that the
amendment now written into tho anti-trust law
practically nullifies tho criminal clause. Upon
the heels of his reminder, Mr. Bryan asks: "Does
the president believe a' criminal conviction pos
sible" under the statute as tho supreme court
now interprets it? "If so, why does he hesi
tate to prosecute tho officials of the Standard
Oil and Tobacco companies?" These are ques
tions which Mr. Taft must answer if ho wishes
his altered views of the anti-trust law to be
regarded as a genuine conversion. But there
upon comes a crucial question from Mr. Bryan,
provoked by Mr. Taft's renewed challenge of a
challenge already amply met, a question which
it were doubtless well for Mr. Taft to ignore
with much dignity to be sure, but with adaman
tine stubbornness. "Speaking of challenges,"
says Mr. Bryan, "here's one, for tho president;"
and thereupon Mr. Taft's merciless inquisitor
"challenges him to make public the written and
verbal recommendations upon which ho ap
pointed Justice White to tho position of chief
justice over Justice Harlan, and tho recom
mendations, written and verbal, on which ho
appointed the justices whom he has placed on
the supremo bench. Did ho know how they
stood on the trust question, or was it purely
accidental that all of his appointees took the
trust side of tho question?" Significant and
interesting as this question is, Mr. Taft could
doubtless intensify public interest In it by a
frank answer.
COURTS NOT ABOVE REPROOF
Theodore Roosevelt delivered an interesting
address In New York City. Tho Associated
Press makes the following report of his ad
dress: New York, Oct. 20. The Judiciary of tho
United States must be brought under the control
and made answerable to the well thought-out
judgment of the people in tho opinion of Theo
dore Roosevelt, who spoke tonight on "The
Conservation of Womanhood and Childhood,"
before the civic forum. This control in Mr.
Roosevelt's judgment "should be exercised
moro cautiously and in different fashion than
the control by people over the legislator and
the executive, but the control must be there."
Control of judges, Mr. Roosevelt said, was
half although by far the Important part of a
program which should bo carried out for proper
conservation of manhood, womanhood and
childhood. The first half of the program, he
said, consisted in placing upon the statute books
of nation and states legislation to remedy exist
ing defects.
The former president spoke at length of what
ho termed "crying abuses connected with child
labor."
Mr. Roosevelt advocated enactment by con
gress of the bill providing for a bureau to bo
known as the children's bureau and to gather,
classify and distribute accurate information on
all subjects relating to the welfare of children.
He urged working women to organize as work
ing men are now organized and declared that
New York should put a stop to manufacturing
in tenement houses.
Experience in the last twenty-five years, tke
speaker declared, has shown that while the
people may be aroused to sound and high think
ing and their legislative and executive officers
try to carry out their purpose, yet their whole
movement for good may como to naught, "bo
cause certain Judges, certain courts are steeped
In some outworn political theory and totally
misapprehend their relations to tho peoplo and
public needs." Ho contlnuod:
"I am entirely aware that no matter how care
fully I guard what I havo to say, no matter how
cautiously and exactly I stato the bald facts and
truths that wo shall all recognize, what I say
assuredly will bo misrepresented by certain
persons with a deliberate vlow of misleading
honest and conservative citlzons Into tho boliof
that I am advocating something radical and
revolutionary and destructive of our govern
mental system, and that I am making an attack
on tho Judges. But I feel that It is my highest
duty to speak plainly on this matter so vital to
our welfare.
"I havo the very hlghost regard, tho highest
respect and admiration for tho Judiciary. I be
lieve the courts havo rendered our people In
calculable service. I most emphatically believe
that we havo been wise In giving groat power to
our judges. But I also most firmly bellovo that
like any other power this power can be abused,
and that it is a power from which tho people
have merely temporarily parted and not which
they havo permanently alienated."
In tho last twenty-flvo years, Mr. Roosevelt
said, the courts of Now York once or twice have
shown what proved well nigh unsurmountable
obstacles to needed social reform. Ho cited, for
Instance, decisions in tho workmen's compensa
tion law cases, tho so-called bakc-shop case and
another ruling, a decision which he said made
tho 9 p. m. closing law non-enforceable, and
"in effect forced women workers to toil until
late hours." These decisions proved tho devo
tion of upright and well-meaning Judges to a
system of economic philosophy, not merely out
worn, but in tho last degree mlschovious.
"I for ono hold that If a majority of the
peoplo, after duo deliberation, como to cham
pion such social and economic reform as these
we champion tonight," ho continued, "they have
tho right to see them enacted into law and
become a part of our settled governmental
policy, and I shall never abandon the effort to
see this view triumph.
"I am asking you to declare unequivocally
that It is for the peoplo themselves to say
whether this policy shall be adopted, and no
body of officials, no matter jow well meaning
or personally honest, no matter whother they
bo legislators, Judges or executives, have any
right to say that wo, tho people, shall not make
laws to protect women anr1 children, to protect
men in hazardous industry, to protect men, wo
men and children from working under unhealthy
conditions, or for manifestly excessive hours,
and to prevent the conditions of lifo in tene
ment houses from becoming intolerable."
MR, BRYAN IN NEBRASKA
One other date has been added to Mr. Bryan's
speaking engagements in the Third congres
sional district, namely, WJsner, Neb., at 3
p. m., on Saturday, October 28. His complete
itinerary in that district for this week is as
follows: Lyons, 11 a. m., Wednesday, October
25; Walt' Hill, 3 p. ra., Wednesday, October 25;
South Sioux City, 8 p. m., Oct. 25; Pender, 10:30
a. m., Friday, October 27; Wayne, 3 p. m., Fri
day, October 27; Norfolk, 8 p. m., Friday,
October 27; Stanton, 11 a. m., Saturday, October
28; Wisner, 3 p. m., Saturday, October 28.
These speaking engagements havo been ar
ranged by the Nebraska democratic stato com
mittee In conjunction with the democratic con
gressional committee of the Third congressional
district.
tttiliitoiMfcHijktMfcitoiifti n' naUL.
fc WE .-i -rV-"-i-M
J.JtfS. .
