The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1897-04-17
THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL AGAIN AT
LOGGERHEADs. ss~,s.-v,s-~ o,~.
JUDGE snIRAs IS NOW ALL RIeAT.
BUT THE OPPONENTS OF AN INCOME
TAX THINK NOT, .'--&> II: .....

Citations of the people who complained
because of the supreme court, by ma
jority of one-and that one having
changed his mind under pressure
declared the income tax provision of the
tariff law unconstitutional. Those who
undertook to differ from the deciding
opinion of Mr.. Justice Shiras, Of Penn
sylvania, were proclaimed anarchists,
social disturbers and dangerous persons
generally. Particular vehement in
these denunciations were the New York
Times, New York Sun and New York
Evening Post. These three journals had
their differences upon minor topics and
they fought each other bitterly, but up
on the question of national loyalty to
the court they were unanimous.
The supreme court has rendered an
other decision by a majority of one. It's
force and effect are operative not
against the people, as was the decision
on the income tax cases, but agansit the
great money and railroads trusts. The
particular combination affected Is the
Trans Missouri Freight association, in
which 18 Western roads. are members.
The court holds that the pooling ar
rangement between these roads under
which they regulate the freight rates is
in restriction of trade and is conse-
quently in violation of the antitrust
law passed by the United States con-
gress five or six years ago. The New
York Evening Post, which is the most
Pecksniffian supporter of law and order
that is printed in the United States, says
of the decision:
"This judgment must be added to the
long line of deplorable decisions, begin
ming with the legal tender cases, in
which the court has revealed it's weak
grasp of the fundamental principles of
law and government by dividing almost
evenly upon them. The dissenting opin-
ions of Judges Field, Gray, Shiras and
White, when they are printed will no
doubt demonstrate with an incisiveness
quite equal to the energy of Judge Peck
ham, on whose side the chief justice and
Judges Brewer, Harlan and Brown, that
the case ought to have been decided the
other way, that the antitrust law did
not apply, or else that, If it lid, a ease
had not been made out under it. When,
uI der Our system, the questions which
underlie the whole social order are such
that the constitution may by the change
of a single judicial vote be made one
day to uphold individual and corporate
liberty, and the next to justify the So
cialistic omnipotence of congress, the
judiciary, to say the least, is not estab-
fishing strong hold on public conf
dence in it's competence" -
Only a few months ago Mr.. Cod
kin, the editor of the Post, was berating
Democrats who ventured to assert that
the income tax decision of the court was
unjust and unwise. No terms were too
harsh or strong or abusive to apply
to those who ventured to suggest that
the court, in reversing the policy and
practice of 100 years, had made a mis-
take. Next comes the New York Times.
another friend and apologist, ofsserusts,
with suggestive wall against Mr.. JUS
tice Peckham's decision. The Times,
it will be remembered, was compelled
by conscientious scruples to desert the
Democratic party last year because the
Chicago platform had assailed the. SUI
preme court. Here is the closing state:
ment Of long editorial article upon
the opinion: -
"And here we are compelled to say
that running through the language of
Justice Peckham's opinion there u.s. a.
flavor, not strongly offensive, but only
too distinct, of the spirit which is char
acteristic of the author of the antitrust
law, ex-senator Sherman. Had Mr.:
Sherman written the opinion, the flavor:
would have been unmistakable, for he is
at once somewhat cynical and a not
too skillful politician, and 'as much of a
demagogue as that implies. Justice
Peckham is not that, and could not. be,
= *.
but he betrays sympathy with. the class
he assumes to be wronged by trusts,
which is doubtless deep. and let's it be-
tray him into opinions which are not at
all deep. As we have sat sWeuarssbeend
for the time being to accent htsslaw.
since It is=the law Of the supreme court.
We are not bound to accept his reeson-
ing, and. on some important points, We
do not -i, ssssssr~, ..<tsss... <tssss..
What does the Times mean by saying
that It Is pound for the time being to
accept his law, since It Is the law Of the
supreme court 2, not that the
chief lIenleof n. yan
4