The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-03-29
GoLDBUG PAPERS PREACH AN
ARCHY.


and patriotism of some of the eastern
papers that were so terribly shocked
because of the attitude of the Demo-
cratic party, in the late presidential
campaign, towards the decision of the
same supreme court on the income tax
case. All who upheld Mr.. Bryan and
the Chicago platform were denounced
by them as anarchists and enemies of
the republic, while the people were con-
graduated on their escape from chaos.
1t was not sufficient that those who
maintained the correctness of the prin-
ciple of the income tax accepted the
decision of the supreme court as de-
claiming the law and bowling obedience
to the same. 1t was demanded Of them
that they abase themselves intellect
ually and make profession of faith in
the infallibility of the supreme court,
though the court itself was divided.
Because those who stood by the Chi
cago platform did not do this they were
reviled and called all manner of evil
names by the goldbug press. And now
the same goldbug press is questioning
the infallibility of the very supreme
provision of the Wilson German law
unconstitutional. And all because the
court has upheld the antitrust law
and said that railroad traffic associa-
tons came within its provisions.
1t is interesting in the extreme to
read some of the comments on the de-
cision of the very papers that were so
denunciatory of Mr.. Bryan and the
Chicago platform last year. The New
York Evening Post says:
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 its weak
grasp of the fundamental principles of
law and government by dividing al
most evenly upon them. The dissenting
opinion of Judges Field, Gray, Shiras
! and White, when they are printed, will
no doubt demonstrate with an inciSive-
ness quite equal to the energy of Judge
Peckham Con whose side were 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 did, case had not been made
! out under it. When, under our system,
the questions which underlie the whole
ton may by the change of a single jul
dicial vote be made one day to uphold
| individual and corporate liberty, and
the next to justify the socialistic ON
Impotence of congress, the judiciary, to
say the least, is not establishing a
strong hold on public confidence in it's
competence. That the casting vote
should have been that of judge whose
! previous judicial career had held him
out as the hope of those who are strug-
Cling against socialistic disorder does
not make matters any better
The supreme court reveals a weak
grasp of the fundamental principles of
law and government by dividing almost
evenly upon them! Did it not reveal
the same weak grasp of these princi-
pies by dividing almost evenly upon
them in the income. tax? Were not the
dissenting opinions in that case quite
equal to the opinion of the court in
energy and incisiveness? Whatever the
casting vote in the antitrust case it
was not that of a judge who showed
so weak a grasp of the principles of law
! and government that he changed front
on them within a months time, as was
! done in the income tax case.
The New York Times does not pre-
tend to quite the same infallibility that
the Post does, but it crowds it at times.
OF the decision it says:
The present decision is sustained by
a bare majority of the court Justice
Peckham, who delivered the opinion.
is Joined by Chief Justice Fuller and
by Justices Brewer Harlan and Brown
making five in all. Four justices dis
sent-Field, Gray, Shiras and White.
With perfect respect to the majority
of the court, it must be said that the
weight of ability and reputation is at
least quite as great on the side of the
dissenting justices
The Times says that it will not pre-
sumo to say that the supreme court
is in error when it says that the Sher-
man antitrust law was intended to
cover TRANSPORTATION companies, and
to secure unlimited competition be-
tween them by absolutely prohibiting
all agreements that would restrain
competition" Gracious, magnanimous
Timesl Had il presumed to say that
the supreme court was in error it may
be doubted whether the people could
say: The government at Washington
still lives"
The New York Commercial Adver-
tiser says:
Heretofore the ablest legal minds in
! the land have held that such agree
ments were not in restraint of trade,
but that they promoted and strength
ened trade by defending the vast rail-
road business of the country from the
ruin involved in reckless and destruct-
i've competition. On this crucial issue
the supreme court is divided as evenly
as it is possible for it to be divided.
This is matter for regret. 1t is, of
course, true that a decision backed by
a majority of one has all the legal force
of a unanimous verdict. But it is also
true that such a decision, implying as
il does so nearly an equal division of
opinion in the court itself regarding
the question at stake, does not and can
not command the popular respect which
practically unanimous mandate
would receive.
And an opinion of the supreme court
of the United States, where a bare ma
jority of the court is in favor of it.
cannot command the popular respect
which a practically unanimous man
date would receive" Certainly not. That
is precisely what those who favored an
income tax said about the decision of
the supreme court in the income tax
cases. And yet to say that last year
was to preach anarchy and teach disre-
spect for law and order If it was all
that last year, and these papers from