The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-20
The Difference.

ENATOR PLATT or Connecticut,
I" was most unhappy in portions
- of the argument he made yes
terday. In defense of the doctrine of ex-
pansion. His talk about the right of
suffrage. as not conferred by the con-
stitution, and all that sort of discus
sion, was easy enough; 1t dealt In as
sertions which no man disputes who has
a fair knowledge Of this country's con
stitution.
But Mr.. Platt tripped awkwardly
when he had TO deal with phases of the
question not included in his notes. Thus.
when Mr.. Hoar inquired whether the
senator was not ~decrying the doctrine
that governments derive their just pow
ers from the consent of the governed.
Mr.. Plat replied that the consent of
all those governed is not necessary" III
Senator Hoar a persisted. II he had
inquired what proportion of consent is
necessary. whether a majority would do
and how about the element that con-
sents not. he could have made Mr..
Platt's position a ridiculous one.
But there was worse than that in Mr..
Platt's speech. He knew that certain
expressions in the famous bred Scott
decision, written by Chief Justice
fancy OF the supreme court Of the
United States. would be thrown at him
In the debate over the expansion ques-
ton. He anticipated this by dismisslng
the decision with the contemptuous re-
mark h Judge Taney's opinion was
a mere dictum."
How about that? Mr.. Plat is one OF
the men who pretended to fear that
the republic was in peril two years <
when a democratic national convention
ventured TO express a hope for a review
of one OF the recent decisions OF the SUI
preme court. 1t is timely to turn, for
the purpose OF comparison, to the SUI
preme-court plank which was put into
the democratic platform. 1t reads;
Until the money question Is settled We
are opposed TO any agitation for fufther
changes In our tariff laws, except such as
are necessary to meet the deficit IN reve-
nue. caused by the adverse decision OF the
supreme court on the income tax. But for
TINS 0etlslOn nN lut NuIifh' ''tAN -
would be no deficit i'm the revenue under
the law passed by "a democratic congress
in strict pursuance OF the uniform deci-
sions OF that court for a period of nearly
one hundred years. We declare that II is
the duty OF congress TO use all the consti-
tutional power hat remains after the de-
cision. or which may come from its re-
versal by the court as II may hereafter be
constituted. so that the burdens OF taxa
ton may be equally and impartially laid.
TO the end that wealth may bear its due
proportion OF the expenses Of the govern
ment.
That is the plank. The history is that
the supreme court fairly took the coun-
try's breath by reversing all OF the
courts former declarations and by de-
clarIng that the income lax Is uncon-
stitutional. Whatever h motive OF
the court. the decision was manifestly
in the direct interest OF this nations
rich men. The courts decision was re-
ceived with establishment by the whole
country.
The democratic platform made a dig
nifed, timely and well-put reference to
the subject. 1t did not denounce the
court or ulSIll~ W AfhAEANh o. 49,
dictum" not to be respected. In criti-
cism OF the court Senator Plat went,
yesterday. ten times farther tina the
democratic convention did-he virtual
ly asserted that the courts decisions. II
II pleases men in public life to say 50.
are not 10 be treated with respect. Yet
his Senator Plat Travelled hand in
hand. two years ago. with the men
who declared hat the authors and sup
porters OF the supreme-court plank Of
1896 were anarchists.
Suppose that, In any OF his recent
talks. Bryan had characterized any de-
eision Of the supreme court as a mere
dlctum." What would the goldbug or
gans say: rather. what would they
not say!