The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1904-09-20
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1904.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 l"o4.
There Is Some Common Law.
When Judge Parker was officially no.
titled of his nomination for the presl-
dency by the Democratic party, he made
a short and pointed speech in the course
of which he said:
.Thc growth of monopoly, OF which
complaint is justly made, cannot be laid
MT the doors OF the courts Of this coun-
try. The decisions OF tho Supreme Court
ri the United States, the Court of APP
peals of this State and tho courts OF last
resort in many other States warrant tho
u assertion that the common law as de-
yeloped affords a complete legal rene
dy against 1nonopolies.
This was regarded as a clincher, and so
i far as we were able to discover at the
time, no Republican paper and no Re-
publican orator. legal or otherwise, un-
dertook to reply to it until Mr. Roose-
velt's letter of acceptance appeared. In
that letter there was the following para
craph which was taken as reply to
the above quotation from Judge Park
er's speech: 5
..There is no common law Of the United
States. It's rules can be enforced only
by the state courts and officers NO
Federal court or officers could take any
action whatever under them. II was tnls
fact coupled with the inability of the
states TO control trusts and monopolies,
which led to the passage Of the Federal
statutes known as the Sherman anti
trust act and the interstate commerce
net: and 1t is only through the exercise or
the powers conferred by these acts ana
nv the statutes Of thetlust Congress sup
plementing them that the national gov
eminent acquires any Jurisdiction over
the subject.
This was taken as a keynote by the Re-
publican journals, both great and small,
and since the appearance Of the letter.
their editorial columns have been laden
with rdcule OF Judge Parkcr's position.
3 and many have been the reflections cast
upon his legal knowledge.
A careful reading Of the proceedings OF
the Supreme Court of the United States
for several years past will show that
Judge Parker was right and that Mr..
Roosevelt with his usual .rough-rider'
impctuosity has displayed his own lg-
norance of the law Of the land, and
brought himself. instead of Judge Park
er. into Tdicule. Some years ago Il
case reached the Supreme Court from
the states courts Of Nebraska which was
entitled the Western Union Telegraph
Company VS.. .%he Cpll Publishing Com
pany. Hon. r. c., Catchings, of Misss-
sippl, one of the ablest lawyers in the
South, has called the attention Of the
yicksburg Herald to this case, and the
decision Hereunder. The contention OF
the company was substantially that the
services which it rendered to the pub
fishing company were a matter or IN
terstatc commerce; that Congress has
sole jurisdiction over such matters, and
can alone prescribe rules and regula-
lions therefor; that 1t had not at the
time these services were rendered pre-
scr!bed any regulations concerning them;
that there Is no national common law,
and that whatever may be the statute or
common law Of Nebraska Is wholly inn
material; and that therefore. there being
no controlling statute or common law,
the State court erred in holding the tele-
graph company liable for any discrimina-
ton IN It's argos between the plaintiff
and the publishing company.
In rendering its decision, the Supreme
Court replied directly 10 this contention
and here Is its reDly in full:
There is no body of Federal common
law separate and distinct from the
common law existing In the several
States in the sense that there Is Il body
III Of statute law enacted by Congress sep
q urate and distinct from the body OF the
statute law enacted by the several States
But il is an entirely different thing to
hold that there Is no common Law In
force generally throughout the United
States and that the countless multitude
OF interstate commerce transactions are
subject TO 80 rules and burdened by nc
restrictions other than those expressed
In the statutes OF Congress. (Here follow.
q definition Of common law succeeded b,
the follDwing.l Can II be that the erea,
multitude Of Interstate commercial ira MS
actions are freed from the burdens Gre
atcd by the common Law, as SO defined
and are subject 10 no rule except that Il
De found IN the statutes of Congress. VI
are clearly OF the opinion that this can
not be SO, and that The principles Of tht
common law are operative upon all In
tersiatc commercial transactions, cxcep
80 far AS they arc modified by congress
Eional enactment
The language Of the above Is 10 III
point at issue, and is plain enough Blu
Justice Brewer Went even further. II
said the question was not a new one (!
that court, and he quoted from eeyera
former cases where the sgp4me cour
had affirmed the fact OF the commo
law. lie quoted from Justice Brow,