The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-04-11
LAW AND COMMON SENSE.
UnanswerabIe Argument of the Bril-
liant Democratic Leader.

D Washington. April 10.-In anticipation of
Mr.. Bailey's promised speech on the rate
bin the senate galleries were filled today
There also was large attendance of SEN
ators.
All the seats in the presidents gallery
were. occupied by friends of the executive
After disposal of the morning business
Mr.. Bailey promptly took the floor. He
discussed the proposition looking to the
Withdrawal OF the power Of the inferior
courts to suspend the orders of the in
tersSate commerce commission. referring
to the contention that there would be a
distinction between the power Of congress
over cases in equity and in law.
Power of Congress.
IF" he said congress can destroy
proceedings in equity it can destroy pro-
ceedings at law This. he said had been
been the point that inferior courts derived
their power from acts Of congress- and
not from the constitution direct. These
concessions left as the only point the dis
tinctfon between the judicial power Of the
United States and the jurisdiction of the
federal courts for which Mr.. Knox and
Mr. SDooner contend He did not con-
slider the point material. but said that If
material in any connection il did not = n
ply in the pending legislation. He then
entered upon definition of the two terms
and after quoting many authorities. de
Clared that they show that there is prac-
tically no difference between them.
Pointed Reference to Spooner.
Referring 10 quotations made by Mr.
Spooner in his argument TO show that
the power Of temporary injunction could
Bailey declared that given they are
calculated to deceive.
Mr.. Spooner interrupted to remark
that in the case quoted, n revenue case,
there was an adequate remedy at law. +"
and Mr.. Bailey responded so we, Will do
in this act"
Mr.. Bailey then undertook to show that
congress has exercised the power to
abridge the right of the courts TO punish
for contempt or to issue writs of man
damus. asserting that the courts have no
inherent power and that lit is the duty
of the fe 1eral courts not to make the law
congress makes for them
IF" he added. congress has the right
To restrict the power TO punish for con-
tempt. in Gods name has II not the right
to limit the power of injunction which has
eraI judges"
Constitutional Limitations.
Mr.. Bailey entered into an elaborate
argument to show that the courts cannot
annuI legislation because of inferentfaI
constitutional limitations. He spoke of
the division of authority among the vari-
Gus branches of the government but said
that he could not follow the offerings of
recent years, which seem to proceed on
the theory that there should be no re-
striCtiOns upon the judiciary. This" he
said. lis the first government that ever
conferred upon the judiciary the power TO
annul Legislation God knows that ought
10 be enough power to confer upon any
nine men: we are ninety: they are nine
7 would not trench upon their powers:
would hold myself unworthy if ] permit
ted them to encrOach uDOn mine
Referring to Mr-.Knox's quotations from
the text books on Jurisprudence he said
that 1.-THE senator fOrgets that they were
discussing the law as it is and that it is
as it is because congress wills IL So the
point being that the legislative branch
of the government is sunreme in the law
making and courts regula ting function
Happily the senator from Pennsylva-
MA reduces the whole question to our
point when he says congress can say