New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-08-14
JUDGE PARKER AyD THE INCOME rAK.

JUDGE PARKER AND THE INCOAE TAY.
IN his speech Of acceptance Judge Parker
dwelt feelingly upon bis superior devotion to
the Constitution. and told the country, what
every sehoolbog learns from his first lessons in
ciTics, bow the powers Of government are dis
trfbgted among the three coordinate depart
ments. he pointed out that occasionally, by
reason OF unnecessary or impatient agitation for
reforms, the limitations placed upon the de-
partments were disregarded He said that ex-
scutVes had employed powers not belonging TO
theR. but be failed 70 specify that chief among
them was Thomas Jefferson, who himself de-
clsred that he had gone beyond his powers in
buying Louisiana and agreeing to incorporate it
Into the Union. Judge Parker did not find it
convenient to remember that incident while
sulogizing Jefferson as the patron saint of strict
conEtltutiohslism.
The candidate also spoke Of laws passed by
the legislature In violation of the Constitution.
Yet. strange TO say. this heaven sent guardian
% the Constitution WIS a supporter Of the most
conspicuous unconstitutional act passed by Con
gress In a quarter OF century. The Demo
cratic party, not in its more recent DAYS of in
sanity, but during the safe ana sane" admin
is1stion OF President Cleveland, passed an IN
constitutional income tax bin, and President
Cleveland allowed it TO become q law. In 1896
after the Supreme Court had declared it IN
constitutional, the Democratic party. no longer
h ignorance Of what IL was asking, in that sim
patient agitation for reforms" which so offends
Judge Parkers judicial sense Of propriety. still
persisted in demanding an income tax, and
threatened 70 pack the Supreme Court in order
70 accomplish It's purpose. Yet the constitu-
nonal Judge Parker Joined ia this war on the
Contribution and the Supreme Court and voted
Tor Mr- Bryan and the Income tax Can be
really take himself seriously in his pose as the
scrupulous defender OF the Constitution?
But perhaps be does not think the income tax
was really unconstitutional, and his vote for
Bryan and the Income tax was in strict har-
Dony with his judicial principles. That theory
finds some support in his speech, for after heav-
Ing one brick az unconstitutional Presidents and
another at unconstitutional lawmakers he
he2yes third brick fun at the Supreme Court.
quite r. the manner Of jefferson, who de-
nounced John Marshall and his associates for
aresaming 10 cnnstrue the Constitution in or
position 10 bis VIII and set aside acts OF his
aerising. Judge Parker complains that stat
-Stes have been set aside 81 unconstitutional
wen il was difficult 70 point out the pro-
visions said to be offended against In their
enactment Now, the only important na-
bonal aet set aside by the United States Su-
pseDe G0nrt IN recent years was the income
FAX. II Judge Parker was discussing present
problems, and not merely reviewing ancient
history IN academic platItudes be must have
meant the Income tax. That would explain his
support o. Il sitter the court haG declared n nm
csasutatone4. Does Fl also mean that II
piacsa ii power Judge Parker will continue 70
work Tor an income tazs His deIphlc utterance
suggests r. AS President he might be able m
escE f1e court, SIS hts platform Of 1896 threat
eaee, ala open TIE way to new tax law
lniess Judge Parker's constitutional sepsi-
uFe2esn : AZ mere pretence. il must be thai he
'ez fonae way q recoheiflnE the income fax