New-York tribune., 1900-07-01
PLATFORMS AND COURTS.

1t is somewhat amusing to find the Outgoing
of the Republican platform at Philadelphia
explained the ground that it would not do to
declare the party policy on an open cOnstitu-
tioDal question lest the Supreme Court should
at some future time come along and give a
decision not in harmony with the ideas of the
party or in support of the legislation of it's
enactment. That is argument which nobody
less than an expert driveller would ever have
thought of as an excuse for trying to run away
from settled policy.
1t is. of course perfectly evident that the
Republican party cannot get away from its
record in Congress, and nobody but it's drivel-
lers wants it to- It's act is embodied in law
and its reasons are spread at length in the pages
Of THE Congressional Record" 1t does not
matter what the Supreme Court may hereafter
decide the party's present policy is settled, and
the party's view Of the power Of Congress to
legislate for new possessions purely their
particular needs may require unhampered by
rules made TO fit different peoples is and ought
to be before the country for judgment. The doc
trine that political party cannot take posi-
tiOn on a great public question until it has
ceased to be an issue and been embalmed in the
Supreme Court reports beyond the reach OF con-
troversy and the need of debate is wonderful
and new If that had been the rule we should
IN our platform instead of having taken sides
on the point forty years ago, when it was one
for discussion. The drivellers seem to have an
idea that party platform is piece of political
prophecy which must be so delphc that, no
matter what happens, it can be pointed to with
pride having guessed right. AS a matter of
fact it is no such thing. 1t is n statement of a
party's acts and plans of action. If the party
does not win they will not be carried out. If
changing circumstances prevent they will not
be carried out. But the people are asked to
say whether they are willing to have those
plans carried out so far as may be, and they
are entitled to know what those plans are,
regardless of anybodys dwelling or forebod-
ing lest the Supreme Court should by any
chance put obstacles in the way of their accom-
plishment. What the Supreme Court will do is
not political question. What the Republican
party has done in developing plan for ruling
new possessions is a political question about
which IL is the business Of platform to speak
Parties all the time take sides for and against
propositions yet TO be submitted to courts The
internal improvement policy about which the
Wings and Democrats fought was thus in dis
pute. and long after Chief Justice Marshall had
declared 1t constitutional the Democrats were
declaring ii unconstitutional. 1t was the same
with the United States Bank. Since the Civil
War the Democrats have declared Protection
unconstitutional though protective tariffs have
regularly been permitted by the Supreme Court
More recently parties in States and in the
Nation have been declaring themselves concern
ing trusts, and sometimes in favor of certain
measures which they enacted only to have them
set aside as unconstitutional
The fathers OF the Republican party did not
qugg its early platforms from any such timid-
ty as prevailed this year with the drivelers.
When the Republican Convention of 1856 met
the power Of Congress TO prohibit slavery In the