The Farmington times. [volume] (Farmington, Mo.) 1874-1902, 1901-01-17

hy Whlch l mean II cohtu nave Ocen
changed Il found impraclicable, for all
believe Ia the doctrine Of parity; that
Is. IN the interchangeable quality o.
dollars When the reurganizers aI.
tack The Democrats position, 40 they
mean that tbs patty should follow
them and declare TOT gold Standard
I, that what they mean By returning
Ia the true faith aud fret principles VI
the parry? II 80, then they should say
-, sIl IN addition, should throw some
light upon the million. who arc wand.
cring IN ignorance ~ 10 81 hen the Dem
ucra'ic patty was ever before CON-
mipcd 10 that policy. Let u have
bill Of particulars.
4. 10 the scsund Of the OBJ 2oiiuns
made to the Chicago plaIiJrm--ihal
relating to government by ini inctiou
~ have this to say: Tho assertion
that that declaration was an assault
upon the integrity of the Judiciary WAS
wholly graiuiiuus and unwafranicd by
he facts. believe, Is the parry be-.
lirycd, that the tremendous stretch OF
Judicial authority made by some OF the
Jsdgcs in cases familiar to us all, car
ricd this authority beyond those limits
which ought to circum-cfiba even the
chur;s Of the linl, aad thereby csiab.
li,.cl pfcccdculs dangerous TO public
,ishls ana safety NJ mtn respects
tn, Judiciary nose than I. anl none
can value more IT. power for good
nor more appreciate the necessity OF
- independence. Bu'. at the same
time, do not forget that Judges arr
only men, amunable to th5 prriaiicis,
yauilits and all the human impulse
IT men. DO MT forget that judges
aay be tempted, in one way or an
Ilhcr. 10 abuse their auihutiiy b.
I stretching il, through construction, Ia
| dangerous cN rcmes | do not forget
that III, Judiciary Is the most Irrcspou.
sblc, and nj the same time The mos
powerful, department Of the govern.
mrnt; nor DO | forget the warning
which JcH lrson aud other great men
Il the earlier day gave forth as T. the
Danger oi judicial encroichmcnl, BE
cause Of these things, and because Vi
TIC extraordinary aajGdicaipns Of sew
| rfil court, IN injunction proceedings,
80 extraordinary IS to surprise, II no.
% ,laltlc the whole country, the Dem
pcrhic party declared, la effect, tia
,hc jurisdiction Of these cOu,t, shout
be more clearly defined, aud that sue
reasonable limitations upon their an
ihuTily should be imposed as w0ulu
better protect the liberty o! tbs a /
Lcns Thi, humane and patriotic sen
,imrut VS. voiced 10 tha dcc!uralio,
a. INIT what W., drupminl,rl "gN.
,rnmcut BY INJUNCTION Do the g.
organizer, believe IN government, b.
injunction, aud is That ono OF lh.
Original principles" To which the.
would recall aud rccommi, the parry.
let u, have q bill Of particulars,
A. 20 the Third obj seton 10 the Chi
al.o pNil1gm-hll reclaim. to the IN
some tiN--I have lh, 10 say: Tha
.Jr lh,ca-qut1yg, us century anI
more the constitutional rish: ul tn
ioycrnmcul 20 levy such tax ha.
1ccu upheld by the SuWcme CJurl
That rgh, had Ilus uaca a part o! ia
| did, established las ri th'tnl DIr
NJ Mr. Ci"ytIuI', l.' adm ni-lrHiiu
Drm'yfAlIc tJrgrc,. enacted a la.
.ryy ing = tax %. ION i-cumrs. The Law
.yas rr,i,'cl ou the broad grounl tina
u was uuc institutional. Nhrn %.
question was liri submitted & the Su
lpgcmr Cont only eight Of tn Hiu'
I,tic', were prtscat, Jutiec JickSjn
being absent Oh accuun, Of sickness
Thee eight Justices dyiird evenly.
four voting o. 81 tain lhr law aId iDu
To declare IL uuCpIstituiJn. Thcu
Justice j cG.on returned and the CAS-,
was rcutm tied. Jrek,un voted t.
sustail ih' law; but now one uf thps,
whp hid voted t. su,lain lhl las
changed biz vote to tie other sidc, an
thus the law WAS held to b. invalid
some Of tao Judges who filed dissent.
ing opinions, notably Justices iiarai
aud HroNn, d clared this decision 10
be the most dIuger,u, that had boon
delivered in hall century, and proph.
esicd thu; II adhered to 1t woaII prove
4 positive mrutce to the licty ui III.
nation. Under these CifGunl ,tances
tha Chicagb conyeuiiua met and de-
clared, what was true, that tbs 81.
premo Court, 10 rendering that dscis.
ion, reversed the presidents OF 100
years, AMI had sustained objections Ia
the enactment of such a law which
had been previously ovcrrulei by ihr
same court, and thea declared Il 10 be
tho duty nf Congress to use MI the
power il had remaining under that Dc.
cision, or which might come from its
reversal, 10 so ippirliIlly lay the bur.
dens Of taxation that wealth might
bear It, due proportion. On the stump
Mr. bryan aud others afterwards d..
clared that the rule established by lba,
decision ought TO be reversed, even II
II required n constitutional amendment
to accomplish it.
That is the whole story, AMI these
declarations were criticised rs an at.
tack upon the Supreme Court, and
made Que Of the excuses Of the Indian.
npo.is contingent for deserving ,hc
Democratic party. Now ! would ask
those gentlemen u they approve the
doctrine Of that decision, aud IL they
ars opposed 10 the principle OF an IL.
come isX? l. the declaration agains
the ley!ing Of tax ON income uBe Of
I The "0rIsiual principles" to which
these valiant aud voeiierous reorgan-
izer would recall and fceonni, the