The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-05-24
THE PEOPLE THE HIGHEST COURT.
Their Right to Secure Reversal of
Supreme Court Decisions Main
tanned.

Their Right to Secure Reversal Of
Supreme Court Decisions Main
tanned.
To the Editor Of the Globe.
Abraham Lincoln, In following the true gov
ernmental principle advocated by Thomas JET
ferson and Andrew Jackson, that decisions
of the supreme court of the United States
could be reversed by the people, was charged
as being an anarchist. In seeking to get a
reversal by the people Of that decision that
would have perpetuated civil despodsm, he
was charged with teaching revolutionary doc
trines and with turning the country over to
anarchy. But Mr.. Lincoln was sustained by
unanimous consent Of the people, and that
government principle was recognized as the
true principle
Those who now advocate the right and the
necessity of the reversal Of the decision that
will perpetuate religious despotism and kindle
again the fires of religious persecution in this
fair land-the decision that this is a Chris
tian nation"-and that it is in the province Of
the people to reverse it, have also had laid
to their doors the same charge that was laid
upon Mr.. Lincoln.
Not long ago the supreme court of the
United States, by a majority Of one, rendered
a decision which destroys the pooling of issues
among railroads ''in restraint Of trade. The
case that was thus decided was from the
West. At the same time there was on the
docket of the supreme court case from the
East, involving the very same principle. 1t
has been determined to push this second
case with the ''hope that some one Of the
justices may change his view when the Joint
Traffic case Is heard"
Thus it will be seen that the lawyers upon
this Eastern case are to enter upon course
of argument and persuasion to get some one
Of the five justices, who made the other the de.
decision and carry the court the other way.
Is this Revolutionary? Is this anarchistic ?
Is this turning the country over to misrule
and anarchy?
About two Years ago the supreme court nv
a majority Of one. rendered a decision on the
question Of an income tax. One OF the poltti-
cal parties In the campaign last year proposed
to have one or more OF the justices OF the
court change his mind upon that; and pro-
posed to present arguments and persuasions
that would in some way bring this about.
By leading men in the other party this was
denounced as revolutionary and anarchistfc.
But how can 1t be any more revolutionary
and anarchistic for the people generally to
present arguments and persuasions to induce
a supreme court justice to change his mind
than 1t Is for some lawyer to do it?
Now, if these lawyers in the railroad case
shall succeed in getting one Of the justices
to change his mind and so reverse the other
decision and commit the United States gov
eminent to a directly opposite course from
that to which the decision already rendered
commits 1t, and if such a thing is to be &C.
cepted by the country as strictly proper, legal
then, was there anything else involved in the
course Of those who last year proposed to have
the decision OF the supreme court reversed
and the government committed to an oppo-
site course with respect to the question Of an
income tax?
Now, 1t becomes self-evident proposition
that, as 1t Is perfectly consistent and &C.
cording to the true governmental principle for
one class of the people-the lawyers-to seek
for reversal of this and any other supreme
court decision, 1t is equally proper, legal gov
ernmental and conservative for any one Of the
people, or for the whole people, to discuss
any of these or any other question, and to
secure, If possible, a reversal OF any such
decision. It Is no more just to charge as
revolutionary and anarchistic any Of the
people who do this than 1t would be to make
this charge against the lawyers; for, who
are the lawyers but some Of the people:
And, indeed are not the people of this coun-
try Just as much interested and Just as much
concerned in the principles Of the government
of the United States as the lawyers are:
Have they not all the same rights?
The truth Of the matter is that the American
principle-the principle held by Jefferson
jackson and Lincoln-the principle being
acted upon in all the cases above noticed
that the decisions Of the supreme court of the
United States are subject to review and dis
cussion and reversal, II possible, by the people
of the United States-is absolutely sound
and is vital to government Of the people, By
the people, and for the people. And there 4
no evading the logic Of the conclusion.
III. F. Phelps.
st. Paul, May q, 1891.