The Hartford republican. (Hartford, Ky.) 18??-1926, 1899-11-03

rights Of each other
The passage of unjust and unconsti-
tutional laws. which prevent a lair
and full hearing to all, engenders a
bitter feeling and ends in victory for
the CORPORATIONS. II one half the earn
estness and zeal employed in clamor
and abuse were bestowed upon the
passage and enforcement Of just laws,
there would be but little complaint OF
inequality.
The charge made against the gov
ernor for vetoing legislation in the In
terest of the people and hostile to or
ganized wealth is attempted to be
proved by citing the McChord bill, and
the fellow servants bill, to each OF
which / will briefly call attention.
Tho MoChord Bill.
After showing In a strong legal argu-
ment that II he had not vetoed the Nc
chord bill the courts would have de-
clared it unconstitutional, he pro-
eeeded:
The whole effect OF the Nebraska
case is, that the McChord bill was un-
constitutional, but Notwithstanding
this, the. governor, who, In the dis
charge Of a sworn duty, vetoed II, is
to be condemned because he did not
allow II to become a law, and thus
= after lidgants were put to great ex-
peLse. annoyance and damage aifOrd
its promoters the privilege OF seeing
it d sregardcd and condemned by the
highest court in the land. The veto
did not assume that the roads were
wi. oui remedy, but stated that they
could rot be deprived OF coming into
a court OF equity 20 stay the hands OF
the commission But it was contended
thst Tie ill self should have afforded
relief "a her han force litigants TO re-
sort to courts independent Of its pro-
visions .or cOnsti uiicnal protection.
That bill paced in the absolute and
arbitrary control Of three commission
ers. not REQUIRED to be lawyers or ex-
peris, not only the interests OF all the
railroads in this commonwealth, but
the inte tests of thousands OF their em-
ployes the interests Of the mines ana
mills with all their employees, the in
terests of every farmer and merchant
who ships goods, grainS or supplies,
and the interests OF every citizen who
took passage upon the trains. These
three men we're not restrained in any
way. II they. through prejudice or
corruption, liked such rates as would
be ruinous to the roads, there was no
appeal. If they saw fit to strike down
the railroad interests and classes
named, the act provided no relief. IT.,
on the other hand they corruptly bar
gained with the roads and established
such rates as would destroy the people,
still there was no avenue OF relief af-
forded by the bill.
II is idle TO say that the protection
OF the courts might have been invoked
by equitable proceedings or injunction.
This is strange argument coming
from the followers of Mr.. Bryan, who,
In their national platform OF 1896, de-
nounced government by Injunction
as "a new and dangerous form of OPP
preston" and who endorsed that ut
terance in the late platform Of Louis
Vile.
Why was not the McChord bill made
Just by providing a way In which all
rights might be guarded without COM
pelling the complainant TO resort to
outside remedies by appealing to fed
eral courts for protection under the
constitution OF the United States?
The admission that equity alone
could relieve one from the unjust oper-
alton of the bill, is the most conclu-
sive argument that IL should not have
become a law.
But this bill was vetoed for another
reason, IL will be observed that the
penalties inflicted by 1t are "a fine of
not less than $500, nor more than
81 900 for the first offense; not less
than $500, nor more than $4,000 for the
second offense; and not less than
$4,000 upon third and succeeding con-
victions."
BY an examination Of section $40,
Kentucky Statutes, 1t will be seen that
the same penalties are denounced
against any railroad company for dis
crimination or preference. An exam
nation OF sections 2tS, PA, 2l5, OF the
const tutlon Of Kentucky, show that
any discrimination of preference is
prohibited: and section 2l7 OF that in
ST. ument provides as punishment for
suen onense a forfeiture OF the charter.
In other words, the old law pre-
sclioes a penalty different to that pre-
fcrlbed In the constitution, and the
McChOrd bill Is open 10 the same OBJ
lection. That the legislature has no
right TO override the plain provisloLs
OF the constitute a by Substituting a
punishment othtS han that Fixed by
that Instrument, can not and Will not
be Questioned.
With.n less than four months after
the veto was signed the Kentucky
court Of appeals, in Louisville and
Nashville Railway company versus
Commonwealth go Kentucky Law Re
porter, llOl). after calling attention
to the difference Ia penalties pre-
scrlhcd in the old law (which are the
came rs those In the MeChord bil)
ara the constitution, as well as Differ
Cnccs between the constitution and
o.her sections OF the statute, held that
la 50 flr as they conflict the statute
was unconstitutional and void.
Had the McChOrd bill passed over
the veto. the court would have been
compelled to declare II void 10 the
same extent and In the same respect
So that, Il appears, the governor has
been guilty OF the objectionable sin
OF yetoiug a bill decided 10 have been
violative OF both the national and state
constitutions.
After detailing the provisions OF the
"Fellow-servants bill" for the veto OF
which he had been criticised, and legal
decisions showing its unconstituuon-
atty, the governor said;
Had this bill become a law, II would
have proven injurious instead of ben