Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1886-10-13

BBgggsEa - -
either party, are not in favor Of such
forced contribution to the manut9c
turer of the east. They are not IN
favor of contributing of their own
scanty means to enable the m0nOpO-
lists Of the east to add to their mill
ions-for this is what it comes to. 1t
has been very truthfully said that
you never find a subsidy beggar who
is not a millionaire. Point to me the
proprietors ofthe protected industries
and I will, as a rule, point you 0the
possessors of princely fortunes. Out
side of the great wrong to, the masses
to be compelled unwillingly to pay:
tribute to the wealthy manufacturers
it is an unhealthy state OF things to
build up such immense fortunes as
thus have been built, up-when the
wealth of the country is massed so
largely in the hands of a few the many
must suffer. It leads to corruption in
legislation. But I cannot longer
dwell on this topic.
GENERALIZATION.
1 have said that the parties stand op-
posed on the question Of Capitalization,
and this too in my judgement is particu-
]arly undemocratic and opposed to the
interest of the many and calculated to
give wealth and monopoly an u%nreason-
able power and advantage over the poor
and middle class. Let me illustrate by
an example. Our state constitution pro-
vides that "every person ought to obtain.
justice freely and without purchase, COM.
pletely and without denial, promptly and
without delay" And substantially the
same provision may be found in the con-
stitution of every state. This was not
only the letter of the organic law, but the
practice until a period subsequent to the
war. But a great change has been
wrought. I appeal to those who have
seen nearly as many years as l, that until
of late it was very rare to hear of q case
being transferred from the state to the
federal court. But since then vast cor.
porations have been multiplied and laws
have been enacted which authorize the
transfer of numerous cases and classes of
cases not before transferable. This is the
result of practice. A widow desires to
collect a sum secured to her by a policy
on her husbands life, or a person having
a fire policy on his personal property
which has been destroyed by fire wishes
to collect the amount secured! Suit is
brought, payment by the company being
refused. The first step by the company,
if it is a foreign corporation or the de-
PENDANT is not a citizen of the United
States, is to remove the suit
INTO THE FEDERAL COURTS.
This largely increased the expenses Of
litigation and is therefore a great hard
ship. If the claim is over $4,000, the
company can appeal from any judgment
of the circuit court to the supreme court
Of the United States, where the case
cannot be reached under four years.
This is simply a denial of justice and
places the person dealing with the cor
poration at its mercy. The same is true
when it is found necessary to sue q rail-
road company which is a foreign corpor-
alton, on any contract or for any personal
injury, or for any other tort. This, too,
is a republican Measure and is retained
in the statute book by republican votes
OR by the refusal Of the republicans to
consent to its repeal. Mr.. Townshend,
a democratic member from Illinois, at
least orce-l believe twice-got a bill
correcting these evils through the house.
l know that to prevent the passage of the
bill in the senate, a prominent insur.
ance company Of New York retained n
of the ablest law firms of that city to
prepare a brief against the law, which
was handed to the judiciary committee
of the senate, and the bill, I think, has
never seen the light since. And here I
wish also not to be misunderstood. I
have no doubt that ninety.nine out of
every 100 republicans in my hearing
would oppose this, but the eastern manu-
facturers, railroad companies, telegraph
companies, express companies and all
CONCENTRATED CAPITAL
oppose repeal, and just that class have
dominated the republican party for many
years. While western republicans have
slumbered and slept, their interests have
been tri1ed with and disregarded. I have
deeply felt the wrong of this ce~ntralizing
tendency. 1t is undcmocratlc, unrepub-
lican, unjust. Impressed with this view
and with the great injustice Of this law
to the masses Of the people and the un-
just and outrageous advantage which it
gives to corporations and concentrated
capital, and for the purpose of calling
attention to it, I read a paper before the
State bar association a little oyer two
years ago, in which I attempted to ex-
pose the injustice and wrong. In that
yaper I used this language:
have said that in my opinion this mod
ern doctrine is not reconcilable with the
constitution. I believe any one who will
study the question candidly will assent
to this view. I also said that it is UNI
fortunate, and in opposition to. the inter.
ests and rights of the people generally.
1 wish to add a word as to the aspect Of
the case. I admit that this final decision;
as to the jurisdiction of federal courts in
such cases is just such as meets the alp.
probation of corporations and organized
capitalists generally, But as "God
made the earth for man and not for trade,"
or even for corporations, we should not
entirely overlook the interests and rights
of the people generally in the copsidera.
ton ofsuch a question. The constitution
of our State provides las do the consti.
tutions of the several States, as a rule,)
that "every person is entitled to a certain
remedy in thelaws for all
INJURIES OR WRONGS
which he may receive in his person,
property or character he oughtto obtain
justice freely and without purchase,
completely and without denial, promptly
and without delay, conformably to. the
laws. This should be the birthzights 81
every American citizen, ven in the ab'
sence of any constitutional provision.
But the modern doctrine of the federal
courts takes away this right, and deliver.
the masses of the people bound hand