New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1898-11-09

rs =sAooos w LIN
or Runck. Pfaender will have close
pull, but will win.
Lind's vote in the country towns, con-
| sidering the reduction in registration is
very gratifying.
The vote in the towns heard from is
as follows: 3.ls..-.E -
Bashaw-Lind, SIS; Eustis, 8. Lind's
lead, Al.
Lake Hanska ka-Lind, 70; Eustis 27.
Lind's lead, 49, ~- ."
! Springfield 1873; Eustis "a.
Majority for Lind of SO.
| Cottonwood IS; Eus,is, "a :.
Majority for Lind of 81.
Mulligan- 80; Eustis, 1s. Ma
| jority for Lind OF 81.
Albin-Lind 63; Eustis, IA. Maiori-
ty for Lind of 40.
Milford-Lind, 61; Eustis, 25. Ma
| J'1lLy 1oI Lluu Ol 90.
Sleepy Eye-Lind, 1873; Eustis, 151.
Majority for Eustis of %.
Burnstown-Llnd,3 35; Eustis, 20. Ma
jority for Lind of 6.
Stark--Lind, so; Eustis 12. Majority
for Lind of 40.
Home-Lind, 90; Eustis, 48. Majority
for Lind of 45.
Linden-Lind, 60; Eustis, 4s. Lind's
lead IL.
John A. johnson telegraphs US that
he has been elected to the senate and that
Njcollet county goes for Lind by 800
majority. Clough had 38S two years ago.
Courtland gave Lind AZ and Eustis
70. This is great gain over 1895 in
favor of Lind. johnson carried the
town by 2 and Bode by 25.
Lafayette gave Lind 1879 and Eustis
81. johnson got 112 to Carlecn's So.
| The Growth of the Court.
| We are all familiar with the ,leclara-
ton embodied in the bill of rights, that
absolute and arbitrary authority or
power over the lives, liberty and prop
erty of freemen exists nowhere in a re-
public not even in the largest majority.
Yet every day some decision of the su-
preme court, state or federal, makes
such a declaration ridiculous. Absolute
and arbitrary authority exists and Is ex-
ercised every day by judges no more fit
to exercise it than members of the legis-
lative or executive departments.
John Marshall is largely responsible
for the aggrandizement of power which
has marked the history of the federal
supreme court particularly. Some of
the effects of these usurpations have
been benefcent, others have been
accepted without much question, while
still others have worked great in
jury. This tendency of the judiciary to
usurp the legislative function has grown
to be one of the dangerous develop.
ments of the time. The supreme courts
have transcsnded their constitutional
function as Interpreters and administra-
tors of law, and have become lawmak-
ers. Some of the decisions and orders
of the federal supreme court during the
past halt dozen years, with respect to
government control of railroads, the ap-
pointment of receiverships and the i'm
position Of restrictions and regulations
upon their management, have been to-
tally without warrant in any existing
Legislation. The law is strictly court
made and made especially to suit the
immediate emergency. AS Judge Canty
} very aptly remarked the other day,
"The courts are run in spirit of car
ism and the supreme court at Washing
, ton is practically nine headed czar."
This tendency of the courts is to be
: deplored; but since there appears to be
nothing to prevent its growth, the only
way to lessen the evils resulting from 1t,
7 is the election of conservative, broad
minded end conscientious men to the
], supreme bench. In this state the su-
) preme bench has been tried and has been
I proved just and wise and loyal to the in
terests of the people. None of that dis
position to subordinate public interest
to those of corporations and capital has
) been exhibited. Judges Mitchell and
); Canty have been staunch and true to
the state in all their decisions, and have
been free from that tendency to exceed
. their legitimate judicial functions
y to which we have called atten-
ton. They have kept strictl5 within the
) constitutional limitations contemplated
s 1,1, fho n, or, uubn fro m o0 to constitution