The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1892-04-20
SOCIALISM, AND THE SUPREME COURT
Of TIL. UNITED STATES.

| oYnment "a the great DGyeHS pdti11. directly
from which oil good to tho citizens Is 20
! emanate.
Paraaoxica as IL may seem, this theory OF
| Government receives to-day its strongest sup
port in the United States from decision put
| out 10 the world by the Supreme Court OF the
United States. In 1876 the restless. discon-
tented elements of society that call themselves
to-day the Farmers Alliance" called them
selves then the Changers. In obedience 10
their demands the supreme court announced
the monstrous principle OF government put
out TO the country in the case OF MUM v
Illinois, "a u. S. r., 1l3. Tho Legislature OF
Illinois, being under Granger dominion,
enacted statute providing that no owner OF
a grain elevator should charge more than GER
tain rate for storing grain in his own elevator.
The owner Of an elevator contested the
constitutionality of this act upon the ground
that it 80 far interfered with bis control over
his own property as practically to deprive
him oft without compensation. The Supreme
Court announced the doctrine that as his
business was one that concerned the public
the public had right to fix the terms upon
which he should do business with it. Mr.. JUS
tice Field delivered very powerful dissent
in which he pointed out that the principle
was practically socialism pure and simple;
that if the principle was to DO admitted
no limit could be placed upon it,
that the business OF storing grain
in an elevator can no more be considered as
public business than that of the merchant
who sells merchandise to the public. or the
blacksmith who shoes horses for the public
or the tailor who makes coats for the pubic
and that if the Legislature of Illinois was
clothed with authority to prescribe the price
which the owner of the elevator should charge
for storing grain in his own elevator 1t might
equally prescribe the rates which either OF the
others should charge, which was in effect the
dream of the Socialist and we do not hest
tate to say that the learned Justices argu-
ment cannot be logically answered.
Nor, in our opinion, can it be successfully
denied that this doctrine is wholly at war
with the theory of the Government, which
our people have always supposed they pos
sessed. A principal purpose of that Govern
ment was to secure to each individual obso-
Lutte protection in all his rights of person and
property. The Constitution bristles with
provisions aimed at both OF these ends Our
only law-makiug powers are Congress ard the
State legislatures.
Congress. of course, has no powers except
those expressly conferred upon it by the Con-
stitution. and there is no provisions in that
instrument authorizing it TO interfere with
private property. The State legislatures are
of course supreme, except as their powers are
abridged by the Constitution; but 1t forbids
them TO enact laws impairing the obligations
Of contracts. or to deprive any person of life
liberty or property without due process o.
law. When, therefore, the Supreme Court
sanctioned this invasion of the rights Of private
property by State legislature. very great
surprise and astonishment were created
in the land. It was hoped that further re-
Elections would cause the Court to perceive
the pernicious nature of its doctrine and
bring about a reversal of it, Those who hoped
for this result. however, have been disap-
appointed. The question has been again
brought before it after lapse of sixteen
years, and it reafhrms the principle. In Budd
q. Ae,o YORK; decided February D. 1892 DAB
Z. S. r., SD it reaffirms Num- q. Illinois
Internationally. 1t is gratifying however
to know that the dissent has now grown
from one justice to three. Justices Brewer
and Brown having joined Justice Field but
1t is most disappointing to find that Justice
Lamar is not amongst the dissentients The
source of this doctrine is very plain The
court is O Yankee court and it represents
Yankee ideas. But while the Yankee has no
idea of introducing the Socialsts' theories into
our Government, he does not perceive that
his own fixed instincts lead up directly
TO socialistc results. The Yankee has
a fixed belief that it is my duty to attend to
your business that it is AS duty to make b
better man by forcing b to live according
to AS ideas rather than according to his own.
He inherited this instinct from his Puritan
ancestors, and is incapable of throwing it OIL
1t goes with the Yankee wherever he goes,
and turns up on every occasion.
We repeat. then that paradoxcal as il may
appear the Supreme Court OF the United
States is the fountain head of the Socialists
of the United States and, unless the PERM
nicious doctrine that it has put out can be
overthrown, it threatens to become a founda-
ton upon which tho Socialist will erect a
structure that will overthrow all our inst.tu-
tons and bring tyranny upon US Mr.. JUS
tice Brewer, delivering the dissenting opinion
of himself and Justices Field and Brown in
BHdd r.Neio York. uses this striking language:
THE paternal theory of government is to me
odious. The utmost possible liberty to the
individual and the fullest possible protection
to him and his property. is both the Limitation
and duty OF government. If it may regulate
the price of one service. which is not a public
service, or the compensation for the use of
one kind of property which is not devoted to
O public use. why may it not with equal reason
regulate the price of all service and the CON-
pensation to be paid for the use of all prop
erty? And if so. Looking Backward is nearer
than dream"
UNJUsT DISCRIMINATION
1t is gratifying to see that the United States
Senate is taking action on the proposed dis
,,,a h. - he toI