The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-05-22

rect taxes, and had not specified the par
ticular way in which the former should
be laid. But the propriety of the pres
ence Of that clause in the fundamental
law was nothing that concerned the court;
and whether its enforcement would pro-
duce disaster or not did not concern it
either. A way is provided TO change the
constitution. but that way does not lie
through the courts The courts duty is
to interpret the laws, not to make them
nor unmake them by setting up fanciful
distinctions which really have no exis-
tence. And it is its duty to interpret
them as tar as possible in accordance
with the intention of their makers. 1t
doesn't follow from this OF course that
they are always to be construed accord
ing to The most natural meaning OF the
langu age in which they are written, be-
cause it is sometimes obvious that such
an Interpretation would defeat the real
purpose of the law. The effect of amy
interpretation may be proper matter to
consider so far as ir may throw light
upon the intention of the makers of the
law, but no further. A court might well
hesitate to give construction to law
that would produce general and
rank injustice because they might
fairly assume that the inten-
tion of it's makers was to do justice,
and in such case they might lie justi-
fed in giving a somewhat strained and
unusual Interpretation to the words in
which it was written in order to avoid
conclusion which they would have
good reason to believe from the very
nature of it was not intended. Never
theless as a rule the language of law is
the chief reliance to determine it's mean
ing, and that language is to be con-
strued, except for very weighty reasons,
according to its natural aud obvious
meaning. The mere fact that the result
of such Interpretation may not accord
with some theory of government which
the court may entertain is not sufficient
reason for altering the obvious meaning
of the words.
The dissenting opinions of Judge Har-
Ian and jackson seem to have proceeded
of the courts to make the fundamental
law square with the acts of Congress in
stead of the acts of Congress with the
fundamental law. There was very little
attempt to show that the Interpretation
of the constitution by the majority did
not express the intention OF its makers,
but the main contention seemed to be
that AS it abridged the power of Congress
to tax the wealth Of the country the
court ought not to sustain it. Such an
Interpretation would be disastrous"
they said. But far more disastrous
would be an assumption of right on the
part of the court to alter, amend or
nullify the constitution to make it con-
form to the acts of Congress. The con-
stitution is the great safeguard of the
peoples rights. 1t sets limit beyond
which the majority that controls the
government cannot go. We can conceive
of no worse disaster that could happen
to this country than that the highest
court in the land, whose duty it is to in
terpret the constitution, instead of re-
garding it as a rock should look upon
it as a shifting bar of sand to be moved
cut or in to suit the advancing or reced-
ing waves of pasGiaS and prejudice and
the various isms that are constantly ap-
pearing and disappearing in this great
country.