The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-08-21
JUSTICE HOLMES AND THE
ADMINISTRATION.

Some of the comments on the recent APP
pointment Of Judge Holmes, Of Massachu-
sets, to the Supreme Bench show misap
Of the government. Discussion as to
whether Judge Holmes agrees with the
policy OF the administration on this or
that public question is entirely out Of
order. Judges of the Supreme Court are
not appointed because of their known or
supposed views on any particular question,
but because as good lawyers ard judges
they are presumed to be able to deal ably
and justly with all questions as they arise.
The judiciary is an independent coordinate
branch Of the government, and is under
no obligations to sustain the political poll
cies of the administration. If it were, it
might have TO change front with different
administrations. Its obvious duty is, Of
course. to decide questions that come be-
fore it according to right principles and
TO expound the Constitution according to
its letter and spirit and established prece-
dents. Beyond knowing that Judge Holmes
is a good lawyer, clear thinker and just
dent to inquire whether he was an ardent
supporter of administration policies or not.
AS a good lawyer he could not entertain
any views that were dangerous. even
though they might not shade exactly with
those of the administration. 1t is much
more important that the Supreme Court
should consist of good lawyers who are
clear and Independent thinkers than that
its members should be in full accord at
all times or at any time with the views Of
the ruling administration.
Judge Holmes was one of the first judges
labor to organize equally with capital, and.
consequently. the right of union men to
use all legitimate means to carry their
points. In a case that came before the
Massachusetts court he held that working
men had a right TO combine and organize
to get the most they could for their labor,
and added: 1T must be true that when
combined they have the same liberty that
combined capital has to support their in
/ terests by arguments. persuasion and the
! bestowal or refusal Of those advantages
| which they otherwise lawfully control so
! long as they do no violence or threaten no
violence" There is nothing radical in this.
/ 1t simply shows disposition and ability
to take an absolutely fair view Of the
| question. Again he said:
Capital should not Cypress labor, nor
/ labor attempt TO cripple capital. Labor
/ has the same rights Of organization as
/ 81 ftS Of
| organization In any manner not disturbing
! TO the public peace or disrupting the equi-
hbrium of government; There should be no
| force exerted to give either labor or capital
| an advantage over the other, legal or other
wise, or any unjust discrimination against
! the rights of either.
No person would now think of calling
these views radical or even advanced
They are automatic and admitted by every
body. No person denies the right of work
men to strike, but no intelligent person
claims that they have a right TO prevent
other persons from taking their places, oil
a right to use force or violence to carry
their points. Everybody will agree with
Judge Holmes that the laws should no
give either capital or labor an advantage
over the other, and that there should b,
no unjust discrimination against the right:
of either. The labor question is a Socia
rather than a political ope but Judg,
Holiness expressions on the subject ar,
indicative of his fairness and independ
ence. He will doubtless prove valuabl,
addition to the Supreme Bench, and tn,
fact that he is a lifelong Republican i.
sufficient guarantee of his general sound
ness on political questions.