The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1896-12-26


lttnssaud srfeccd Tents have been sthbiished
Tor ii iGrg period Of time such prpcedeIltDN
should kec0me the fundamental Axifns ct 4
That period anu to this d0ctriEe -FOUR thu
Ut the eourt: adhere. Moreover. Mr. Bryan
fl III perfect accord with lie party and stands
tairiy anu square!y upon the platform adopt
edsfat Chicago AMI indorses the plank that
refers to the income tax law and the rulings
OF our supreme court thereon, again ~ re-
ferrinx to the test case had by the supreme
court it will be found that four ninths Of the
court was n favor of the law anu four-ninths;
stood opposed to the law. but on rehearing,
when the court was assembled en- hanc, it
was discovered that one justice IN the Interim
had changed his mind, or in regular pnriance,
had reversed himself and then the court
stood four .nnths for and fve-nint this
against or a majority Of 1-9 against the law
bnt why this fractional part Of The count came
to charge his mind Will probably never be
known perhaps it was owning to environment
and encourage or perhaps 1t was owing to de-
sire 20 bend the pregnant Images OF the knee
SO that they would fit under the mahogany OF
the rich mans table or POSSIBLY 1t was the
love of being winsd and dined and petted by
a rnoneyed oilEarchy or it is possible that all
those causes together conspirsd TO cause this
poor remnant of mortality TO lose his head
dence and esteem of the American psople, and
thaueh he may not have intended to play the
part of Judas, yet the world is censorious
and ,oany are so uncharitabie as to believe
that he did. but there is one thing certain and
that Is that the decision SO had was one OF the
1aaicssnfs and Il to SA udieisa ee
mine was not dragged In the mire
it came very near the danger line. and outside
OF the zone occupied by the niillonares tho
trusts and monopolies there is not one man in
a hundred bu, that believes that that decision
was impregnated with partisan bias, and was
decree in favor of the money class, aud that
1t was direct Insult and slap il the face for
the masses, and whatever else may be thought
Of partisan judiciary there is one thing GER
tain, that a court so permeated with judicial
.sot 10 league with hell and pact with the
devil. That this decision was carefully di-
gested and we'll considered verdict | am lcathe
to believe, for it has every appearance of
being an arbitrary decree, the nlerest dictu,n
Of a court, aud judicial sham. But while
indulging In these comments l would not
have it inferred that I wished to derogate
one cta from that profound regard and re-
spect that is due to those members of the
supreme bench who SO nobly and patriot
caily interposed their objections TO
such an unparalleled and unprecedented
judicial farce. Moreover, this decision &C.
centuates and confirms the belief that an ap-
l,ointive judiciary that is responsible to no
one, sooner or later will transcend that judi
and little by little it will usurp functions not
contemplated by the constitution. court, to
be in touch and sympathy with the people,
should derive it's powers from the people. and
this can only be rought about by the elective
franchise, in short our supreme justices should
be elected by the people. Again. some are so
fatuous as to believe that decision of our su-
preme court is final and cannot be reversed,
and like the laws of Modes and Persians, once
a decision always a decision, but if we will go
back no farther than Gen. Grants admins
tratior we will find that this reversal was
brought about by the appointment Of two JUS
tees for that avowcd purpose, who were
known to be in favor of such reversal
and Justly so. And those who are SO
super sensitive upon the findings of Our su-
preme court and assume that they should
never he questioned or criticised seem to lose
sight of the fact that We have not got to go
back in tbs history of our country farther
than an event that is fresh in the memory of
many now living, wi1e., ii decision Of our su-
pre,ne court was denounced in unneasured
terms throughout tho whole North and East
ami West, and this was none other than the
bred Scott decision. Abraham Lincoln said
he would not g bound by 1t, Vim. II. Sew.
ard came in with his higher law, Lloyd Gar
r;son. Wendall Phillips and thousands of
others denounced it without stint or measure
language of the court. II was said that Chief
Justice Laney had SAID that q negro had no
fights that white man was bound to respect.
Whereas, the real language of the court,
though to the same import, was less harsh,
for it said from history Of the case,
it would seem that negro had
NO rights which white man was bound to
respect, and in this the court was right, for
lpxier the constitution. which also formed
part of the history of the cuse, the negro was
anere chattel and thing and was not con-
sidared law worthy And SO in conclusion
will say that if the contentiou of the court
is we'll grounded on the assumption of I'M
equal distribution then a tariff law is equally
Unconstitutional for it is notorious that
tariff affects different parts Of tho
country uneuualiy and it was the
main contention of John c. Calhoun and
South Carolina that while tariff was bene-
fetal to the New England states. it was in
furious to. South Carolina, and it would be a
strange commentary upon the past if John
&c, Calhoun and his state should find an unex-
pected support and vindication by our SUI
irene court of today. and 80 in fine will add
that Doth William Jennings Bryan and an ill.,
come tax law will yet find an abundant virdi-
cation by an almost unanimous verdict in
their favor by the American people.
A. G. LAGRANGE.
Okla bena Farm, Washington.