The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-10-04
CARNEG1E's ATTACK ON LINCOLN

In 1896 there was a great hue and
cry raised against the Democratic
party because of the alleged charge
that it's platform made IAN attack on
the Supreme Court So far in this
campaign nobody has reiterated that
charge except Andrew Carnegie. Less
than year ago he was violently OPP
posed to Mckinley and openly de-
nounced his imperialistic policy. That
was during the armor plate fight. The
trust won the fight and the victory
was worth two or three million dol
lars to Carnegie. He went abroad
then and after coming back began to
look around for reason to give for
his support of Mckinley. He could
not afford to say that it was because
Congress had given him a grab in
the armor plate matter or because he
had changed his position on imperial
ism. He had too much sense to put it
on the money question. In looking
about for reason he seized upon the
old shop-woI'n so-called 'attack upon
the Supreme Court" Who ever ex-
pected to see Carnegie forget protec-
ton and trusts and rush into the arena
to become the champion of the SUI
preme Court?
The Democratic party never made
any attack upon the Supreme Court
The only attack ever made by any POI
litical party on the Supreme Court
was made by the Republican party on
the bred Scott decision, and the only
reorganization of the court ever pro.
posed was made by Grant at the die
tation of the railroads just after the
war; In speech at Springfield, ILL.,,
on June Goth, 1857, Lincoln took strong
ground that the Supreme Court was
not right in the bred Scott decision,
and the Republicans applauded. But
the court was more unanimous in that
decision than upon the income tax
case in which it was held unconstitu-
tional only because one judge changed
his mind over night. Commenting on
Lincolns position and Carnegie's, the
Springfield Republican closes an able
editorial with these words:
Accordingly, if Andrew Carnegie,
in his remarks on the attack-on-the-
court issue, is right, Mr.. Lincoln and
d. Il 1e hot
stood for what strikes at the founda-
tons of human society," for what 'saps
the roots of peace and order for
what substitutes license for law and
for what will throw us back to bar
barism, even to savagery.' Is that so?
Is that the present Republican iudg-
ment of Lincoln's and the party's
course at that time? Mr.. Carnegie
thus brings himself to the position of
indorsing what he himself describes
as war and violence abroad because
the other candidate stands. for these
scourges at home in refusing to accent
as final a bare majority decision of
the Supreme Court wherein it reversed
position held by it for nearly 100
years. Did Lincoln stand for these
scourges in 1872
If there is anything at all in Mr..
Carnegie's position it is an attack on
Lincoln and the Republican party. It
is all pretense to hide Mr.. Carnegie's
flop due to the profits that he reaps
from the armor plate deal. If the lib
eral steel man had said: II was
against Mckinley until his party pass
ed legislation that put millions in my
pocket and | am against Bryan be-
cause he will antagonize such legisla-
ti0n'-that would have been the whole
truth, but it would not have sounded
so we'll as championing the Supreme
Court against alleged attacks.