The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1890-05-30

They are stirring up a debate which
may suggest to the Tories of Eng
land the necessity Of establishing a
Supreme Court to veto the acts of
Parliament, made in the interest of
the people.
A comparison OF the two systems
of government has no direct bearing
on the demand of the Minnesota
farmers for the abolition of judicial
supervision of legislative enact
ments, because neither they nor any
other Americans would think for q
moment of adopting the British sys-
tenn of government instead of the
American system; but it has a very
important bearing on their argu-
ment that American legislatures
ought to be supreme because the
British Parliament is supreme. For
it is evident that an authority which
may be safely exercised under one
system of government and one set OF
conditions may be altogether dan
gerous under another system OF gov
eminent and set of conditions.
Why wherein is the difference? Are
we not principally white people,
mainly of the same stocks that oc-
cupy the British Islands? Are not
our accessions of Scandinavians, Ger
mans and French of the same blood
with the orr ginal settlers of those is
lands? Are we not more educated,
more intelligent, more accustomed
to self-government than the people
of England? Why should we re-
quire the petticoat-kings to have
their snafae-bits in our mouths and
their harness on our backs? If we
are not fit for self-government let us
send over to Queen Victoria and bor-
row one of her prolific breed to rule
over us. Certainly the progeny of
that virtuous and respectable old
lady would be likely to give us bet
ter government than a gang of poll
neutrality-suspicious., picked out by
Jay Gould, Vanderbilt and Jim Hill,
with the sole object offacilitating the
speedy transfer OF the wealth of the
country from the hands of the pro-
ducers to the pockets of a few gigan-
tic thieves. Ii there is any worse gov
eminent on earth than that, may
God, in his infinite mercy = save us
from it, We don't think it can be
found anywhere outside OF Central
Africa.
More, it is not true that the courts
in England have no power to re-
strain the government. Suppose, for
instance, that Lord Salisbury, who
as premier, is all powerful under the
British system, should take offense
at some private act of John Smith,
and should induce a subservient Par
lament to pass a law condemning
Jonn Smith to prison without trial,
what would be the result? The
courts would Immediately set John
Smith free and throw the premier in
to Jail for conspiracy And if his
lordship should persist in his at
tempt to trample on liberty by pro-
curing further tyrannical legislation,
he would certainly in the end be
hanged for high treason, as several
of his predecessors have been. The
British Government is not an alb
solute despotism, however large it's
majority in Parliament may be, but
is restrained by certain we'll under
stood constitutional principles, whose
action, when they are called into
play, is not less, but all the more en-
phatic, because it's limits are not de-
fined in written document.
Yes, the courts OF England would
set John Smith free-because the
rights of the withdrawal under
Magma Charta "a contract between
king and people, had been invaded.
But if Parliament passes laws in
furious to the whole people there is
no power of any English court to de-
clare those laws unconstitutional.
The theory OF England is, whatever
the people,-speaking through Par
liament,-declares to be right is right,
until changed by the same power
which declared it; and that those
who do not like what the majority
think right can pack their little grips
and get out OF the country, and seek
some other land, where the minority
by the blessed aid OF bayonets, rule
the majority. Yes; in England, as
one OF her greatest lawyers declared,
IAN act of Parliament is omnipo-
tent" And an act Of legislation in
this country, by the state within its
province, or the nation within it's
province. should be OmnipOtent also