The herald., 1896-10-26

of generations hanging in the balance,
when q great. good man feels driven
by a sense Of duty to break the law,
which it may be his function to maintain.
For such occasions we want no prece-
dents. When they occur the hero takes
his life into his hand, never questioning
whether the cross or the crown be his
portion. "Arbitrary" interferences
must be and ought to be denounced. In
high places as well as in low, If not more
so. The incongruity between the man
rer in which his eminence deals with
this clause and with that referring to
the supreme court really reminds one of
the story of the man who was accused
of stealing a kettle, and made this de-
tense: First. that the kettle had hole
in the bottom and was not worth steal
ing; second, that he returned the kettle
a short time after stealing it; third, that
he could not have stolen it, because the
complainant did not own any Kettle at
all. AS to the supreme court the grand
peroration pronounced by his eminence
is undoubtedly sincere, but is 1t de-
served? Is not this the same tribunal
which pronounced the Dred Scott de-
cision? Justly denounced by the saints
and heroes Of the anti-slavery agitation
and by the Republican platform on
which Abraham Lincoln was elected III
1860 and denounced in unmeasured
terms far more severe than the clause
in the Chicago platform-condemned by
the people and reversed as soon as death,
the rebellion and the election enabled
the people to alter the membership of
the court. Is not this the same court
which, during the war, confirmed and
after the war annulled the legal tender
act? Is not this the court that in every
great emergency has decided national
issues on strict party lines? A majority
of one Of the judges decides a question
in this court and makes it for the time
being the supreme law of the land,
though four other Judges of the same
court may positively dissent. Does the
voice Of this one settle the eternal right
or wrong of the issue in such a way that
the people may not try, and try hard, to
change it? This one judge may not be
as we'll informed, may be more veniai,
less conscientious than the dissenting
four; yet his vote makes the decision
the supreme law of the land. If he
changes his vote, then the reverse is
the supreme law Of the land, and are
half the nation, under a conviction that
wrong has been done by this decision
to be forever debarred from trying to
have this wrong righted by the court
"as it may be hereafter constituted?'
The thought is monstrous and we can
not believe that his eninence, calmly
rejecting, could wish it. ),
His eminence says the spirit manifest
ed by the combined Democratic, Popu-
list and silver parties is socialistic; and
that the appeals to the common peo-
ple," to the "laborers," to the poor and
downtrodden,' and the denunciations
against "plutocrats." Corporations u
money grabbers' and bankers" are
evidencec of this; and he gives warning
that thereby reckless men may light
the lurid fires of the commune" 1t seems
strange that his eminence has not been
impressed by the remarkable similarity
existing between the classes appealed tc
as we'll as the classes denounced in this
instance, and also in another certain
case which occurred not quite 1900 years
ago In Palestine. The party who did the
appealing and denouncing then was nc