Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (Aug. 2, 1907)
tmstoH$si0Mto!&i l immJMmtuvmtflWI U'M'lWmimtil 8 The Commoner, VOLUME 7, NUMBER 23 I nil n.i . .Ctj'V.i. )' mm CURR6NT b 1 I'itrflitaiiwfel ihi ta3PV -iKT j.lfcqr,'l''"'"'l,i" Ifopics Tlf agwKj wjf fKTw .-rfs71 lEriig&to TCl JWiS -T iKj"wM. ,1 y-ry 7- TMtoun-"rV?Myiw Ji w w: tv 11. . Iff 4 .',. r. ff.- HI v: THE NEW YORK World prints an authorized statement of President Roosevelt's posi tion In regard to tho Bonding of the battleship floot to tho Pacific, which is generally approved. It Is represented that tho object of tho proposed cruise Is to ascertain tho defects of the fleot, if any; that no order has boon Issued by tho president or by tho general board; that tho plan was made before tho recent war flurry, and that the fleot may go to the Pacific. o J REFERRING TO this statement tho New York X Evening Post says: "So far, so good. We sincerely hope that before long the 'may' will become 'will not;' but it is reassuring, indeed, to know that nothing is definitely settled as yot. Of course, this does not explain the con tradictions of the presidential statements of two weeks ago. Moreover, it putB Secretary Metcalf, with his promise of tho greatest naval spectacle the Pacific coast has over seen, lnTa most delight ful pickle. He must either pose as a braggart who can not substantiate his boasts, or as an ignoramus In regard to happenings in his own dopartmont. There is only one way 6ut; let him put the blame on the much-enduring Loeb."" A CURIOUS "DUEL" is reported by the Co , lumbus, Ind., correspondent fo,r the Chi cago Record-Herald in this way: "Two drivers of automobiles fought a duel here today, with their machines as weapons. They are Joe Med lam of this city and Eugene E. Reyer of Kokomo, each an agent for his particular type of car., An accidental collision started the row. Both men became angry and, putting on full speedy charged each other. Time and again they crashed together, each trying to put the other.. H MJ ' i - . i m out or action, Tnoy wouiu oacic ,away, tnen charge, until the fenders of Medlam's machine' we're 'so bent it wouldn't run. Medlam then leaped into the other car to pummel Reyer, but the police put an end to the fight." O CLARENCE DARROW spoke for. two days in the Haywood trial at Boise, pleading, for his client. All correspondents agree that bar row's speech was one of the most eloquent and dramatic over hoard in the court room. The dispatches report him as saying: "You men of the prosecution, you men of tho mine owners' association, you men who are seeking the life of Haywood, not because he is Haywood, but , "because he represents a class, don't be so short sighted, so foolish as to believe that you strangle, the Western Federation of Miners when you tie a rope around Bill Haywood's neck; don't be so blind as to believe that when you make three fresh new graves here in Idaho that you have killed the labor movement in this world, When Bill Haywood is gone millions of other willing hands will carry on his work to victory in the end." The jury retired Saturday, July 27, and Sunday morning returned a verdict of not guilty. The verdict was received with manifestations, of great joy by Haywood's friends. Prominent socialists say they will make Haywood their candidate for president. GOVERNOR FOLK, of Missouri, has made an interesting ' statement concerning an ad- dress recently delivered by Justice Brewer of the United States siitpreme court in which ad-' dress Justice Brewer criticised the railroad rate laws of Missouri. Governor Folk said: "The distinguished justice, Judge Brewer of the United States supreme court, takes mo to task for objecting to the practice of the federal courts of arbitrarily suspending state statutes until their validity can be passed upon. He says: 'But suppose, through such railroad laws as Missouri passed, the railroads actually lose money in carrying passengers and freight, will the state make the loss good to them?' I an swer that suppose the federal court, after many years of litigation, finds the rates reasonable and the laws valid, will the railroads make the loss good to the people of Missouri? To say that each shipper would have a right to bring suit against tho railroads is virtually no remedy at all, owing to the fact that, in tho majority of instances, tho expenses of litigation would be greater than the amount involved. While any law regulating railroad rates must afford the railroads a reasonable return, tho question Involved in this discussion is far graver than whether the rates fixed by those Missouri laws are reasonable. It concerns the right of the people of a state to self-government. The people of Missouri are not prejudiced against railroads, and if tho ratefe fixed in these statutes are found to be unreasonable the same senti ment of justice that caused their enactment will acquiesce in their nullification. But are stat utes of a state presumed to be bad until found good? Is a state statute not a law until the federal court passes upon it? Laws have here tofore been presumed to be valid until found to be invalid. We are considering the question whether a federal court can declare a state stat ute unconstitutional. If it does that, Its right to do so has been firmly established, and its ruling will meet with respect and obedience. But I question tho right of a federal court to enjoin the state from enforcing its criminal stat utes until the courts decide them good. I in sist that a state has the right to enforce its laws until the court says that those laws are bad The officials elected by the people of tho states take an oath to enforce the laws of the state; yet in some states these officials are en joined by the federal courts from doing that which they have sworn to do. In 1905 the legis lature of Missouri enacted a maximum freight rate law. The state officials were promptly en joined by the federal court from enforcing this statute until they could adjudicate concerning its constitutionality. One of the attorneys rep resenting the railroads stated that he could delay the hearing of the case for many years. That he knew something whereof he spoke is shown by the fact that two years have come and gone; another legislature has been elected; has been, in session; has adjourned, and the state officials are still enjoined from enforcing this law, and the case is still pending and undetermined. Sometime in the years to come, the court will probably find the act valid, but the necessity for it then will have passed with the changing con ditions. This suspension of statutes by tempo rary injunction, with the delays that any good lawyer can bring about, virtually gives to special interests the right to veto state legislation that theV do not like, and deprives the people of a state of the benefit of the laws that are both just and constitutional. ' Until a court can say that a statute of a 'state is constitutional or unconstitutional, it should not attempt to tie the hands of the state by enjoining tho state officials from enforcing that law." FEDERAL JUDGE PRITCHARD issued an in junction against North Carolina's state rail road law and declared unconstitutional the crim inal clause of the state law .providing two and one-fourth cents as the legal passenger rate. Two ticket agents were arrested, charged with the violation of this law. They were dis charged by. Judge Pritchard. The case has been appealed to the United States supreme court. Referring to the Pritchard ruling Governor Glenn of North Carolina says: "It is my pur pose to continue the enforcement of law and prosecution of Southern Railway cases by the use of all tho means in my power to enforce this law until it is declared to be invalid by a com petent tribunal after a full Investigation of its merits. Upon the hearing of this writ it was manifest that the chief question before the court was whether the injunction granted by Judge Pritchard operated not only upon the parties to that suit, but had the effect to suspend the rate law and to Btop the entire machinery of the criminal courts of the state. Evidently the circuit judge was unwilling to give such wide effect to the order of injunction and felt that some stronger foundations wore necessary. And while in his opinion he dwelt upon the unusual and extraordinary course pursued by the courts of the state in interfering with his order, he went to tho extent of deciding that the portion of the law declaring the violation of the rate a misdemeanor was unconstitutional and therefore void. In the opinion of counsel who represent the state of North Carolina this ruling is abso lutely groundless unless the court at the same time should hold that the rate also as fixed by the statute was unconstitutional. Judge Pritch ard when he granted the injunction expressly stated that part of the statute was not void on its face, and referred the question to a master in chancery to take evidence to sustain tho allegations of the bill that the act was uncon stitutional in respect of the rate fixed, upon the ground that It would deprive the railroad company of its property without due process of law and deprive it also of the equal protection of law. It was argued by counsel for the state that it would be absurd to hold that the legisla ture had the power to fix the rate but did not have the power to provide such action as would insure obedience to the law. Counsel for the state also urged upon the judge that he had already decided that the rate law, so far as the fixing of the rate was concerned, was not uncon stitutional upon its face'; that it required evi dence to show that it was unconstitutional and that if 'he now decided that the action provided in the law, which alone gave it any effect, was unconstitutional such a decision would be to prejudice the case which he had referred to the standing master, and the counsel insisted further, that any decision that the judge might make in the habeas corpus proceedings discharg ing the prisoners would be to hold that a mere interlocutory injunction against the North Caro lina railroad corporation commission and the attorney general had the effect to suspend the whole law throughout the state and operated as an injunction, against all the people and all the courts of the state." THE SOUTHERN Railway was found guilty of violating the North Carolina law forbid ding, under $500 penalty, tickets to be sold for more than two and a quarter cerits a mile, was fined $30,000, and two of its officials were sent to prison. Federal Judge Pritchard immediate ly released the officials on habeas corpus, grant ed an injunction restraining the state from col lecting its fine and inveighed against the law as "confiscatory" on the ground that the South ern might have to pay as much as $2,500,000 in fines. A clash between the state and the fed eral government is threatened. In a telegram to the New York World Governor Glenn says: "I regret this controv.ersy between federal and state courts. The contention is over the con stitutionality of our rate law. The railroads contend it is unconstitutional in that it con fiscates their property, and seek to enforce this through the federal court. The federal court seeks to enjoin our state courts from any juris diction, even to indictments, and, by restraining orders in civil suits and habeas corpus proceed ings in criminal indictments, attempts to ignore state courts. We think the orderly way, our court having jurisdiction, is, in case railroads are aggrieved, for them to appeal through the state courts to the supreme court of the United States." JUDGE PRITCHARD was elected to the United States senate in a fusion between the republicans and populists, Marion Butler being chosen for the populists. He was appoint ed to-the bench by President Roosevelt. It is admitted in Washington that Mr. Roosevelt is greatly embarrassed by Judge Pritchard's action. A Washington dispatch to the New York World says: "Federal officials who regret Judge Pritchard's action say that the road had ample remedy, .that it could have obtained a stay of execution and taken an appeal to the common pleas court. From that tribunal an appeal could have been taken to the United States supreme court. These officials say that the action of Judge Pritchard is the first case of record in which federal courts have interfered in a puroly state matter. They refer to the recent course pursued by a federal judge in Nebraska, when a similar action was brought before him, who refused to assume jurisdiction and sajd it was a question for appeal to the various state courts. They expected Judge Pritchard to follow the same course. When the situation became acute in North Carolina the president requested Attor- 4 f 1 V a .,'a. U