The Labor enquirer., 1883-09-29
FIELDS DECISION.

this country from Hong Kong. He holds
that the law admits of no discrimina-
ton, inasmuch as it prohibits the en-.
trance of Chinese into this country fol
the ten wears succeeding ninety days
after its passage. Justice Field in this
recent decision lays great stress upon
the point that in constituting and apply
ing an act the intention must be taken
into consideration and judgment rem
dered according to that intention.
i do not purpose to take issue with
the learned legal gentleman, for fully
coincide with him; but to uncover the
praise in citing this late decision as eyi-
dence of the honesty of our supreme
courts which have been and will con-
tinue to be brought forward by the cor
ruptionists, 1 desire to call attention to
the fact that Chief Justice Field has not
always construed the acts of congress in
the same honest and candid manner.
The idea that, if all else prove false to
justice and hon esty, the supreme court
is impregnable to money and chicanery
is false, and a former decision of this
same Field proves it beyond question.
In the suit of the Burlington and Mis-
Fsouri River Railroad company, involving
100000 acres of land, Justice Field did
not see fit to construe the law in accord
ance with its intention. The act appropri-
ating the land to this company read ::
Every alternate section of public land
| excepting mineral lands) desi Enated by
odd numbers, to the amount of ten sec
tions per mile, on each side of said road
| on the line thereof, and not sold, re-
served or otherwise disposed of by. the
United States"
Now, when the company came to claim
and take possession of the land it was
found that some portion of it had been
otherwise disposed Of" The land agents
and lawyers of the company thereupon
| claimed the right to go outside the usual
! twenty mile limits and pick their Sec
tions- even if they were disposed to go
hundreds of miles from the line of the
road; and they did so. Out of this grew
suit, which was finally carried to the
supreme court and Justice Field decided
that the company had Alright to take the
sections without regard TO lateral limits,
He made this decision in the face of
score of precedents showing the lnten-
ton of the act, and which in its own
wording acknowledged probability Of
the section along the line of the road"
being otherwise disposed Of"
Thus is the infaAibility of our supreme
courts dashed to the earth through the
influence of a railroad corporations
money, and thus is the delusion that
there remains one tribunal uncorrupted
by the monopolist's gold, shattered
The full details of the case cited are
ably set forth in pamphlet prepared by
George W. Julian, of Indiana, one of the
ablest lights in the legal fraternity of the
present time and a perseYering reformer
of deep research. From the pamphlet
in question, l have obtained the informa
ton on the subject, and from it l make
the following extract with reference to
the corruption in our highest courts:
"Iu articles already given to the pub
lie l have discussed the power of our
land-grant railways over the executive
and legislative departments of the gov
ernment, and illustrated it by facts. 1
now proceed to inquire whether the
same malign influence has reached the
judicial department, and is manipulating
the scales of justice? This will seem
delicate question, and venture upon its
consideration with some hesitation, and
as disagreeable duty. If honestly pos
ible, the people should undoubtedly
continue to cherish their traditional re-
spect for the purity and impartiality of
our federal courts and especially the su-
preme court of the United States. They
should not willingly let 60 their faith
that one great tribunal is left which will
not betray its exalted trust by lending
itself to the uses of great corporations,
or lowering the tone of perfect inde-
pendence which made it the pride of
the nation in its earlier history. On the
other hand, no man is bound to shut his
eyes to actual facts, or to keep silent
when he sees that the cry of danger
should besounded. Wrongs cannot be
righted by ignoring them. Our federal
tribunals have not been infallible. On
questions involving popular rights, espe-
cially, they have sometimes gone astrav,
and their decisions have been reversed
on appeal to the people, as the tribunal
Of last resort They pronounced the
alien and seditiOn laws constitutional
enactments. They affirmed the cUnsti-
tutionality of the fugitive slave act of
1850. 1t was the supreme court of the
United States that pronounced the Dred
Scot decision, which was the mere echo
and breath of slavery as a political
power. The Judges of this court are
mere men, and it is now an open secret
that they are no longer bevond the warp
ing influence of party politics, The pub
lie will not soon forget the history of the
legal tender decision of 1874; while the
charge is now openly made, and widely
believed, that one of the judges recently