The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1904-10-27


did. The United ststs- lss- raua
promised, but it performance hs-
carried she 5l@-~Ing~ af civil and
religion. liberty Ia every f.os II
ground on sh@~~ islands, and TOE
obieet Ie~s.on l. there 10 r~u4aln
Not promise. but performances h
what the United ssAts- has giveu
the Philippine isiansa~; and, finally
peace, even against the advice aud
counsel of the "A nti-imperailsss,-
a. tho@e who have increased the bur
dens Of TN. United States in the
Philippines arr pleased 10 style them
selves. But there can be no ''Impersl-
ism" known under our Gonstitu
ton, and none exists, and Judge
Parker perfectly knows that 10 be
the fact. BIZ: if Judge Parker
calls the policy Of the United States
"Impersiis,n," how would his policy
differ from IL? The only thing he
proposes il to make an indefinite
promise that would be fraught with
immediate and infinite harm.
THAT COMMON LAW REMEDY - FOR
TRUSTS.
ID. Judge Parker's and his par
tvs position on the Trust question
is one that will, upon investigation
by any good lawyer, appear TO be
untenable, If not ridiculous. Judge
Parker seems TO claim that the Com
mon Law is applicable to Trusts,
and embraces complete remedy"
for the evil. But what il the Conn
mon Law on Trusts? 1t is only
such law as was in force in England
when our Constitution was adopted.
Judge Parker goes no further,
however, in fact than TO say, that
in the case of the Western Union
Telegraph Company V. The Call
Publishing Company (1S1 q. s.,
p. 92), the Supreme Court decided
that common law principles could
be applied by the United States
courts in cases involving interstate
commerce in the absence of United
States Statutes specifically covering
the case" but he leaves ii to be in
ferred that the common law regu-
lates commerce and in the absence of
statutory authority vests the courts
with power to regulate such COM
merce.
WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD
Judge Parker's statement Of fact
is true; his inference is distinctly
erroneous and misleading. What
the U. S. Supreme Court held was
that the dealings of persons by and
through commercial transactions be.
tween the State was subject, like
other transactions, to the primes pies
of the common law in the absence
Of statutory enactment controlling
the suhject-matter. The court has
not held, nor has it learned in the
direction Of holding, that the COM
mon law was "suffiCient." without
federal authority, to control inter-
state commerce While the prin-
ciples of the common law may be
applied in cases involving interstate
commerce. such principles can only
be applied i'll government transac-
tons between individuals the same
as they may be applied within a |
State. And this is what the court
held. And Mr.. Justice Brewer in
that decision quotes, with approval,
the words of Mr.. Justice Matthews
in Smith v. Alabama Q24 u. S.,
1861, as follows: "There is no COM
mon law Of the United States in |
the sense Of National customary
law distinct from the common law
of England as adopted by the sew
sral States, each for itself, applied
as its local law, and subject to such
alteration as may be provided by its
own statutes"
But even in England while an
offence against public trade, such as
'forestalling the Market" was a
under the common
aw, it was found necessary to regu.
ate that evil by statute, which was
lone by 9TH and 9Th Edward vi,
b. IA. "Forestallipg was the prac-
ice Of sending out agents upon the
Dads leading into large market
owns, especially London, to buy up
'roduce brought in by country VEN
ors and then, by combination or {
Individual control, advance prices
+ legislation were necessary in L
England in the 10th century to
reak up this infantile effort at i
trusts, is it likely to be les. essen {
lal in the United States now, our s
ommon law and all thereof being t
1herited from England? And be- S
des when we consider that the
resent trust evils which loudly call, t
Or correction are an outgrowth of b
lodern industrial conditions are not Z
My different in form and opera b
on bat gigantic in scope in com il
arson with anything known in C
10 previous history Of the world, v
is apparent that the common law f
hlch knew little or nothing of g
lem must essentially be inadequate o
their regulation. IS
1t would be interesting to see il
ldge Parker undertake to apply a
le statute Of 9Th Edward VI to al