The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-09-27
THE LAW Is THE LAW.
The Courts Do Not Make, But They
Interpret IT.

Seattle. Sept. 3. 1897.
To the Editor: The recent decision OF
the supreme court which affirms that the
PopuliSt act relating 10 the foreclosure
or mortgages existing al the time OF the
passage OF the act - unconsItu uonal.
was very ably commented upon in your
leading editorial OF yesterday. and its mis-
chieyous effects pointed out. Every law
yer IN the state OF Washington deserv-
ing the name. knew a. first glance that
the act vas void as 70 existing mortgages;
and every man OF any common sense.
whatever his politics may be. knows that
as 10 future mortgages Il IS equally IN
furious TO the borrower and lender 1t IS
also reproach 70 the state Of Washing
ton. and will prevent the investment or
money in the state. This law has already
driven capital from the state. and It's sf-
feet Is TO maintain and Increase the rate
OF interest II is a positive. injury 10 ths
poor man, as well as 10 every man VINO
buys or sells or borrows. We need East
ern capital ar low rates OF interest in
order 70 give the laboring men employ
ment and develop industries. and without
capital this is an impossibility: but this
act has given the state of Washington
pad name among people In the East who
would otherwise make investments here.
The act is hostile 20 the interests or
every man in the state, except the street
corner denagogue and politician. whose
only mission seems to be TO "bunko" the
laboring man. II is needless to say that
1t Is disgrace to the fair fame OF the
stste, and should speedily be repealed.
As might be expected. the comments or
the PopulistS on the decision OF the su-
preme court that the act IS not retroac-
tive. are TO the effect that the Judges are
Influenced by Republican politics. and that
VIXEN they thus declare an act OF legisla-
80
that 1t Is in violation OF the constitution,
end hence OF existing fundamental law.
they are making new laws for the people,
instead of merely reafflrming the consti-
tuition AMI those bedrock principles OF
law which have always been In existence
since the foundation or the government.
Would II not be well for the Populists TO
understand that the courts do not and
cannot make laws? They can only give
effect TO. and execute. the laws already
In existence, whether they be constitu-
uonal law, common law, or statute law,
and in the latter case only when the stat
ute law is consistent with and in harmony
with the former.
1t Is mistaken idea also, but II pre-
walls In some quarters with ignorant peo-
pie, that 'fnjunctions" may be issued at
the arbitrary will of Judge, and that an
injunction is something new in American
law, and the peculiar right OF a corpora
tton. On the contrary the law governing
the issuing OF injunctions today is pre-
cisely what IL has been for hundreds OF
years and ever since the first year Of tho
foundation of the government OF the Uni
ted States. 1t is not the special privilege
of a corporation. but may be sued out ly
any man. the humblest and poorest In
the community wherever and whenever
an act or wrong is threatened or attempt
ed. which would cause an injury 10 him
that would be irreparable, or that could
not be adequately compensated by suit
for damages. This is the right Of every
man. rich or poor. and II has been exer-
cised by the poor man every day for
hundred years past and much longer. both
in England and America They are not
peculiar to the United States courts; and
any court of record in the state Of Wash
ington will grant an injunction upon a
proper showing In favor Of the poorest
man in the state If a corporation or a
rich man should invade his rights-the
Popuiist rant to the contrary notwith-
standing.
But my special object in this article is
to bring TO the attention OF every lawyer
I'm the state another matter in regard to
this vicious piece of legislation, which is
still In force as to future mortgages. II is
this; May not q mortgagor. for the con-
s,deration therein stated. expressly waive.
on the lace OF MS mortgage any supposed
benefit that he may have under the act
of 1897. and make his contract under the
laws Of the state OF Washington as they
existed anterior TO said date? Tho courts
have decided that a party may. for r. con-
sideration, waive any benefit under an act
of assembly passed for his benefit; as for
instance, "A party may agree not 20 take
the benefit OF stay law, or an act ex-
empting property from levy or sale under
a n In
corporated in the mortgages to be made
in this state. could not the evil OF the act
of 1897. as between mortgagor and mort
gagee be gotten rid Of, and would not
such a waiver render the act OF 1897 com
raratively harmless, except so far as II is
q menace to the prosperity of the state7
LOW INTEREST.