The Florence tribune., 1901-06-08
THE PUERTO RlcAN CASES.
Louis F. Post in The Public

The supreme court has in effect de- cided by majority of one judge, that the federal government may enter into competition with autocratie govern ments of Europe in maintaining crown colonies in different parts of the world, and that scattered over the earth 1t may have bodies of subjects of whom | it demands dumb allegiance. At this turning point in the history of our government of the people, by the | people, and for the people" one looks back instinctlvely, and not without | encouragement, to the Dred Scott case. With what vividness that musty de- l cision recalls how a majority of this same court, lowing obsequiously then to the slave power as majority of it bows obsequiously to-day to the pow CT of an imperial plutocracy, brought ruin unconsciously upon the very cause they consciously sought to pro- tect.
 The respect which a decision of the highest court of the country should command is necessarily weakened in this case by the fact that two repub-
 lican and two democratic judges stur- diiy dissent. These four, moreover, are all men upon whom no suspicion
 rests. One of the majority judges
 the only democrat among them-is
 chiefly distinguished as representa-
 tive of the protected sugar interests of 1 Louisiana, which might have been in-
 jured by different decision; and an-
 other fell under cloud, few years
 ago, by his sudden conversion to the
 plutocratic side of the income tax case
 just when one vote on that side was
 needed. IL is, indeed, remarkable
 thing that in the two great supreme
 court decisions of this generation
 bearing upon the gathering conaict be-
 tween democracy and plutocracy, the
 cause of the latter should have been sustained by vote of to i; that in one case an act of congress was nulli-
 fed, while in the other it is sanctioned ;
 and that in each, the majority over ruled long settled precedents of the court in order to reach their conclu-
 sions. Yet such is the fact The in- come tax law was held to be uneonsti-
 tutioual by vote of , to 4, the majori' ty overruling series of contrary de-
 cisions and now the crown colony
 act is held, on the other hand, to be constitutional, by vote of , to 4, c majority overriding u decision of tht
 court which mad been undistur bed for ' more than three-quarters of century
 We're it not for this readiness t' 2 juggIe with precedents, one might 6nC
 in the Puerto Rico decision cause fo
 great satisfaction, by inferring that il leaving the question of territorial gov
 ernment so completely under the con
 trol of congress, the court cartails 1t
 own earlier assumption of power t i. override the legislative department
 But this might prove to be poo
 source of satisfaction. There is Il n assurance that when congress legis f. lates less to the liking of the majorit n of the judges they will not again swa, | the court, an1 by thin distinctions s overrule the democratic principle o |. this later precedent. Therein lies tn if danger of the judicial system tha f Marshall built up. Since the cour 70 sits in review of the legislative de n partment upon the eonstitutioaality 0 r legislation, congress is less careful | if legislate constitutionally than if tn Q responsib bility rested wholly with il fl Thus it comes aoout that unconstitu 1T tional legislation is frequent, and thu d court picks and chooses, holding tha :. to be unconstitutional which majorit ,. of the judges dislike, and sanctionin If that which they like. As to some 0 I. the most vital qustions of publi --i policy, therefore, the court may, as i
 the income tax law and the crow
 colony law they actually did, becom i- fnal legislators. This crown colon D. decision makes it clearer than eve a, that the principle of the judicial plan Id of the Chicago platform of 1896 wa D. sound If we are to have democrat
 as distinguished from p:utocratic an h. imperialistic government, we mus l. have democratic as distinguishe h. from plutocratic and imperialisti a. supreme court.