Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1904-08-13
roo Much Power In one Man.

r We often hear of the zone man
j power" in our government and always
i fnd that alusion is made to the chief
executive. It suits the partisan pur-
poses of the Opposition" no matter
, which party may be, for the time be.
ing repre- esented therein, to seek to
make political capital in this way. The
amiable experts in unnecessary noise
always find this profitable theme.
But our constitution hedges the Elk.
ecutive about with so many checks
and restrictions that it is the fault Of
the people or their representatives if
he assumes and asserts prerogatives
not properly vested in him.
y There is, however, in the opinion of
/ the Sentry one man power that is
anomalous and dangerous in the high
est degree. It resides, strangely
enough, in the judiciary branch of our
admirable Republican system. It is
the tremendous, the uncontrolled, the
irreverSible power resting in the hand
of the one man who gives the casting
vote in the framing of a decision of
the supreme court of the United
States
In trial involving the ownership
or value of sheep before a justice of
the peace, the jury must be unani-
nous. But in our highest tribunal, a
trial involving hundreds of millions of
money, the permanent policy of the
government, possibly the fate of the
nation itself may be decided either
way by the whims or prejudice of a
single justice.
The opinion of one man in 1877 de-
cided the momentous questions as to |
who should be the President of the
United States during the nesuing four
years. That decision carried with It
ineffaceable influences on the current
OF American history, yet a change of
WV "Ou'u nave COHNerIeQ the
minority of the electoral tribunal into
a majority and that one vote was
cast by a justice of the supreme court.
The constitutionalty of the income
tax was adversely decided by single
vote.
In the greatest patent suit of the
nineteenth century, the Bell Telephone
and Drawbaugh case, the court was
divided into majority and a minority ,
with the difference of only one.
The question as to whether the con.
follows tae flag was settled ,
N a way so confusing and inconch-
iive as to be still the subject of won.
lerlng controversy, but the settlement
reached certain questions with suAi.
lent clearness to make vital changes
n our conceptions of the national
one man held the bal
lnce of power.
vast consequences affecting the
lghts and interests of millions of
'eople may flow from the Northern
securities decision of the supreme 9
ourt which divided them, as often
reViously, on the line of FIVE to four &
We lose something of our faith in
he courts infallibility when we reach
nat the four dissenters are equally as 4
Intelligent, honest and learned as their D
lctoIious colleagues-theya are merely =
ne less numerous. The clergy warnf$
S not to put trust in riches and the 9
upreme court decides that it is Grim. -
nal to put riches in trusts-by a ma.
orlty of one. In theory all of ms
re equal, but the august bench. with
My just enough votes to settle n
elegates our little brown brothers to
n Indefinite period of probation and
ltelage.
What Is the remedy? That Is a dif.
cult question, worthy the most seri.
us consideration of the wisest lepis.
itors Some claim that II is better
iat a question be decided wrongly
'an not decided at all This is true
the case OF minor judicial deter.
iina'ion whore the right of apnaaI -
Nls's and where the wrongful decision =
Jay possibly be corrected br higher a
n'hority From the supreme court I
the United States there is no an. !
eai' hence, an erroneous decision win 2
and as The law OF the land until a z