Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1896-09-20
OUR PLATFORM AND THE SUPREME
COURT

COURT.
The democra tic party, after plain
declaration for tariff for revenue, and
an emphatic denunciation of the McKin-
ley tariff, twice condemned by the peo-
pie in national elections" proceeds to
say"
Until the money question is settled we
are opposed to any agitation for further
changes n our tariff laws, except such
as are necessary to meet the deficit in
revenue caused by the adverse decision
OF the supreme court on the income tax.
There would be no deficit in the reve-
nue. but for the annulment by the su-
preme court of a law passed by a demo-
cratic congress. IN strict pursuance Of the
uniform decisions of that court for near
ly 100 years; that court having sustained
constitutional objections to is enact
ment, which have been oVerruled by the
ablest judges who had ever sat on that
bench.
eve declare that it is the duty of con-
gress to use all the constitutional power
which remains after that decision, or
which may come from its reversal by
the court as ii may hereafter be constitu-
ted, so that the burdens of taxation may
be equally and impartially la.d, to the
end that wealth may bear it's due proper
ton of the expenses Of the government"
An cutlery has been made over the
words of the last paragraph quoted
above, wild as that of "all the fiends
FROM heaven that fell, who raised the
banner cry of hell" They have been de-
nounced as an assault upon the eonsti-
tuition and the supreme court of the
United States; as proposition to pack
that court; to defy its rulings; as IAN
archy," and as q score Of other very bad
things.
No bo q nd oil oh
language could make such stupid criti-
cism, or attribute any such meaning to
these words, unless of malice prepense.
Read the language used for yourself.
The first two paragraphs are statements
of simple historical facts, which no intel
ligent and truthful person Will attempt
to deny. The third is a temperate and
candid declaration of what the demo-
cratic party believes to be the duty of
congress in the premises namely, to use
all the CONSTITUTIONAL POWER it
now has left by the decision of the SUI
preme court in the income tax case, or
which may come from the reversal of
that decision by the supreme court as 1t
may be hereafter constituted, 80 that
the burdens of taxation may be equally
and lmpartially laid, to the end that
wealth may bear It's due proportion of
the expenses of the government"
There is not here one word of defiance
of the authority of the supreme court.
On the contrary, that authority is ac-
cepted and recognized, even when 1t
overturns its own course of decision for
q hundred years, in order now to deny
to congress the power which 1t has eX-
ercised in accordance with the courts
own uniform rulings for century. Only
those who are conscious of their own dis
position to pack courts, in order to pro-
cure such decisions as they wish, would
for q moment impute to the words used
a purpose to gerrymander the supreme
court, so as to obtain a decision favor
able to an income tax, either by increas-
ing thu number of it's judges, or retiring
and replacing them, or in any other way.
Such a sinister construction of the langu-
age OF more than two-thirds of the honest
democracy of the United States, brands
its authors as weak minded or insincere.
The supreme court is neither sacred
nor infallible. 1t has no power of its own.
What it has is all derived-delegated to
it from the people, whose agent merely
it is. The number of its judges has var
the best or most learned of men. They
commit errors and change their opinion,
and override their own decisions and
get sick and die like others. The country
has sadly learned that when occasion
requires or suits they can be and are par
tjsans. With the highest regard and rev.
erenoe for that exalted tribunal, we sub
nit that a corruptonist and a knaVe is
not less one when he wears It's silken
gown than in laborefs overalls; and he
is a more dangerous one than others just
in the degree that he has more ability
and is invested with greater authority
and power.
But the democratic platform neither
criticises, censures nor denounces the su-
preme court, nor any of its members, nor
it's rulings in the income tax case, nor In
any others. Indeed, it indorses the four
out of its nine members who dissented
from both the doctrines and decision that
prevailed in that case; and these dissent
ing opinions obviate all necessity for FUR
Their criticism or denunciatio The judS-
ment which nullified the income tax law
was, in fact, a "one-man" judgment rem
dered by five justices against four; and
the fifth man, who made the majority of
one Shiras, had originally upheld the
law in part, but later, before the rehear-
ing. he experienced change of heart
and mind, which fitted him for oVerturn-
ing the law entirely and overrullng HIM
self. OF the four dissenting Justices two
were republicans-Iiarlan and Brown
and two were democrats-W hite and
Jackson.
Following are some utterances of these
dissenting Justices:
THE practical effect of the decision
today" says Judge Harlan, lis to give
to certain kinds of property a position
of fayoritism and advantage INCON-
| SISTENT WITH THE FUNDAMENT-
| AL PRINCIPLES OF OUR SOCIAL OR
GANIZATION, and to invest them with
| power and influence that may be perilous
| to that portion of the American people
upon whom rests the larger part of the
| burdens of the government, and who
ought not to be subjected to the do
minlon of aggregated wealth any more