The Elbert County tribune. [volume] (Elbert, Elbert County, Colo.) 18??-1920, 1904-09-29

bluhier h> 10 nave declared mat the com
man law would be found sufficient TO deal
, with all the trust questions which come
up. Parker must have known, but he
probably forgot. that. from the very ma
ture OF things. you can't apply the COM
mon law In national court. Our federal
courts derive all their power from the
Constitution of the United States. Con-
gress can only legislnte under the Consti-
tuition, and. while we apply general prin-
ciples in Interpreting the law. il Is i'm
| possible to secure any affirmative action
In the United States court. except as the
result of statute law duly passed by
Congress and approved by the President
Of the United States. 4 man like Olney.
who has been interested in public at
fairs at Washington, would never have
made the blunder Parker made. He
seemed to have written his speech OF ac-
ceptance as If he were dealing entirely
In abstract questions which had been pre-
scented for settlement by his own court.
His exposition of the general principles
OF the Constitution was not bad from a
legal standpoint. but when he came to
deal with the question of trusts he seem
ed to have forgotten that he was respond
| ing to nomination from a national con-
rention, which had selected him to act as
President OF the United States, In which
capacity he would have to execute Unit
ed States laws only, aud would have alb
solutely nothing to do with the common
law. This allusion OF Parker to the
common law. as n means of attacking
the trusts. has been II source Of surprise
and Amusement to the profession all over
the country. Judge Pnrker's decisions in
| New York State have always taken high
rank, and 1t was this which made the
amazement all the greater. We could
not understand how it could possibly be
that any good lawyer could have made
such blunder. and we have been forced
to the conclusion that Judge Parker alb
solutely forgot that he was writing on
| national topic. This is only an in
stance going to show the unwisdom of
taking a man off the bench for politicsl
position. especially such position as
| that OF President OF the United States.
Experience Necessary.
ITO administer the affairs OF the gov
eminent successfully, experience il just
| as necessary as 1t is to run hotel or a
| railroad. A lawyer In active practice is
| necessarily thrown in to large extent
with the ordinary business affairs of the
country. but with judge on the bench
it is entirely different. He deals with
matters OF abstract right and wrong.
and all his training goes to remove him
| from business problems. In point of
| fact. the successful judge In a court of
| last resort should be as far removed
| from the Influences of daily life us possi-
bic. The ideal judge is legal machine.
| settling abstract principles OF law, where
| as the ideal President is exactly the oppo-
site. He executes the laws as he finds
them, suggests new ones to meet new
| conditions. and acts as the personal rep
| resentative of the people who make the
| laws. II Is not his business to interpret.
but TO do, and the things which make n
| man good judge make him bad Presi-
dent. and vice versa. Parker would new
er have made that awful blunder IL he
had had any recent experience In Con-
gress or in an executive position at
| Washington, where he would have been
in touch with current opinion on this
| subject. l don't wonder that Roose-
welt picked him mp on this. and. in my
opinion. the Presidents paragraph about
| the common law as applied to the federal
| control of trusts is n most luminous ex-
position of the powers and the limitations
OF the federal government. But it's GER
| tamly knockout blow for Parker"
Tho Tariff Issue.
~ was glad to see" said successful
looking man, who explained later on that
he was a manufacturer in northern Yer
mont, 81 was glad to see that the Presi-
dent made such n point of the tariff
| issue. We had dose of Democratic free
trade theories up our way about ten
years ago, which we will never forget.
We are so near the Canadian border
that we get the worst of every reduction
| in the tariff rates. We have to enter
into competition with the cheap labor
| OF Canada. When the Wilson tariff bill
| went into operation, just ten years ago.
| it shut up my factory inside of six
months, and l tell you. gentlemen, l
| didn't open again until after Mckinley
was elected and the Dingley tariff law
went into operation. 1t was time of
| panic, as you know. thousands of labor
| ing men were glad to work for any
wages. and yet, at the same time, could
| not run my factory and compete with the
Canadians. who flooded our part of the
country with goods made by the cheapest
labor. such as l could not secure even
| in those times of starvation. There are
some places far in the interior where
freight rates protect them from foreign
competition in times of free trade, but
those of us who are near the border are
| the first to feel this competition. / got
! 1t in the neck ten years ago. and got 1t
good and hard. IL there weren't any
other issue between the two parties, |
would vote for Roosevelt, because he and
the Republicans generally stand for the
protection of American manufactures
against the competition of the cheap la
Dor, not only OF Canada, but OF the
world at large. We all believe in reci-
procity which Is reciprocal, and not 10
free trade under the guise OF reciprocity.
Roosevelt's story of the disastrous effects
Of the Wilson tariff OF 1894 is not over
drawn in the slightest particular. and !
am glad to see that he has kept the
tariff issue to the front. because in all
this talk OF Imperialism and extrava-