Saint Mary's beacon., 1901-09-12

"Republican Insular Policy" has
been sanctioned by the Supreme
Court ?" In which of the so-called
insular cases was that policy !sanct-
Toned ? Can any body tell what
policy any five Of the nine Supreme
Court Judges have sanctioned !?
There never was case before that
high tribunal in which there has
been snch an unreconcilable clash
ing Of views. 1t is true in one of
the cases Eve judges reached q cer-
taip. conclusion, but that conclu-
sion was not the sanctioning of q
Republican policy or any other pol
icy. The Supreme Court has moth
ing to do with policy, and it is 3
grave injustice to say that it has.
It deals with constitutional and
legal questions, but with questions
OF policy never. Il 10 somewhat
singular that whilst FIVE judges
q bare majority Of one-reached u
given conclusion, four OF those
same Eve utterly repudiated the
reasoning and the grounds upon
which the fifth one stood. The
conclusion reached affected the par
ticular c, sc, and that case had re-
lation to duties on imports, but no
principle was laid down by the ma
jority of the court and much less
vas any policy of the Republican
party sanctioned. That there may
be no room to dispute what we
have just said We will quote few
sentences from a carefully prepared
address delivered by Represent tative
LittleGeld, Of Maine, before the
Bar Association in Denver, Il week
ago. Mr.. Little6eld is a staunch
and strenuous Republican. Speak
ing Of the insular cases he said
"These cases in the manner in
which results we're reached, the in
congruity of results, and the va
riety ofinconsistent views expressed
by members Of the court, are with
out parallel in our judicial history.
Until some reasonable consistency
and uuanimity of opinion is reach
ed by the Court upon the questions
brought mp by what are called the
'insular cases." we can hardly ex-
pect the courts conclusions to be
final and beyond revision" In
the light Of this criticism it is not
an easy matter to see how the plat
form builders could venture to say
that the Republican insular policy
was sanctioned by the Supreme
Court.
The Republican party "is ready
By taw to curb and defeat trusts
'chich sti6ie competition IN trade,
and TO suppress all combinations
'chich create a monopoly" This is
cool and refreshing for sultry wealth
er. MonopolIes have existed prob
ably as long as civilization has, but
the trusts as We know them today
are Of recent origin. They have
grown mp under Republican auspi-
ces and are hostile to Democracy.
The fact, which is notorious, that
these trusts are the mainstay of the
Republican party and furnish it's
managers with money to carry elec-
tions. is most persuasive evidence
that the Republican party is not
ready to curb and defeat organized
trusts. These trusts antagonize
the Democratic party because that
party's precepts and principles are
at war With their policy and prac-
tice. and the trusts support the Re-
publican party because they are pro-
tected by it and expand and grow
more powerful under its fostering
care. In the August number of
the Cosmopolitan DIR. Richard Il.
Ely states that he sees in the billion
dollar steel trust "three distinct
kinds of monopolistic forces work
ingtogether and strengenthingeaeh
other-viz. those proceeding from
sharp limitations OF supply Of val
liable minerals ; those proceeding
from patents and secret processes.
and, finally, those coming from
transportation agencies and other
monopolistic pursuits. We End thus
what we may call monopoly raised
to the third power. Does not this
colossal trust stifle competition in
Grade, and is it not a combination
which creates q monopoly? Iii
as DIR. Ely says. monopoly raised to
the third power. Yet. instead of
being curbed. defeated or suppress
sed by the Republican party. il has