Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1904-08-17
.tion at home and q resulting reduc-
tion of prices, has proved irresistible

tion or prices, has proved irresistible
i'm q number of cases. All men must
agree that the net result of enacting
laws that foster such inequitable
conditions, is most unfortunate for
the people as a whole, aud it would
seem as if all ought TO agree that the
effective remedy would be to appro-
priately mcdify the offending law.
The growth of monopoly, of which
complaint is justly made, cannot be
laid at the doors of the courts of this
country. The decisions of the Su.
ipreme Court of the United States,
the Court of Appeals of this State
and the courts of last resort in many
other States, warrant the assertion
that the common law as developed af-
fords a complete legal remedy against
the monopolies. The fact that they
have multiplied in number and i'm
creased in power has been due, not to
the failure of the courts to apply the
law when properly moved by admin
istrative officials or private indi-
yiduals, but to the failure of officials
charged with the duty of enforcing
the law to take the necessary proceed
ure to procure the judgments of the
courts in the appropriate Jurisdiction,
coupled with the fact that the legisla-
tive departments of some of our State
government, as well as Congress in
the manner already referred to, have
by legislation encouraged their propa.
CATION.
What is needed-in addition to
the passage of statute revising the
tariff duties to a reasonable basis--is
not SO much other and different laws,
as officials having both the dsposi-
ton and the courage to enforce ex-
listing law.
While this is my view of the scope
of the common law, if it should be
made to appear that it is a mistaken
one, then | favor such legislation
within constitutional limitations as
will give the people just aud full
measure of protection.
1t is difficult to understand how
any citizen of the United States,
much less a descendant of Revolu-
tionary stock, can tolerate the thought
of permanently denying the right of
self-government to the Filipinos.
Can we hope to instill into the
minds of our descendants reverence
and devotion for government by
the people, while denying ultimately
that right to the inhabitants of dis
tant countries, whose territory we
have acquired either by purchase or
by force?
Can we say to the Filipinos,
"Yoar lives, your liberty and your
property may be taken from you
without due process of law for all
time," and expect we will long glory
in that feature of Magma Charta,
which has become incorporated, in
substance and effect, into the consti-
tuition of every State, as well as into
the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States?
Can we hope for the respect of the
civilized world, while proudly guar
anteeing to every citizen of the
United States that no law shall he
made or enforced which shall abridge
the privileges or immunties of citi.
Gems of the United States, or deny to
any person the equal protection OF
the laws, and at the same time not
only, deny similar rights to the in
habitants of the Philippines, bat take
away from them the right of trial by
jury, and place their lives and the
disposition of their property in the
keeping of those whom we send to
them to be their Governors?
We shall certainly rue it as a
nation if we make any such attempt.
Viewing the question even from
the standpoint of national selfish
ness, there is no prospect that the
twenty millions of dollars expended
in the purchase of the islands and
the six hundred and fifty millions
said to have been since disbursed
| will ever come back to ns 1tha