New-York tribune., 1906-04-27
MR.. SP00NER REPLIES.
DEFENDS COURTS POWERS
Rqileg amendment You'd Be Leg
;dafi0e USurpation. He Declares.
Lrnm Ne Tribune Bureau. ]

TFrom TIE Tribune Buresu.l
washington April Ex-senator spooner de-
"a three hours to-day TO the refutation Of the
- argument made by Senator Bailey in sup
-, OF hts amendment 10 the Hepburn bill.
F,s-.ssinr himself 10 the only vital provision
.hs Bailey amendment. that which prohibits
9rserior federal courts from granting a tenn
.-v Injunction against an order OF the Inter-
..,s Commerce Commission. Mr.. Spooner de-
.,es that IL was legislative usurDation OF a
scial function and pronounced the doctrine
-. Congress can curtail the judicial power Of
- 7-nited states courts not only ''unsound. but
ssngerous
=. s,nrene Court after another, Mr. Spooner
.l.o,lv established. in the estimation OF a large
e,orstv Of the Senate. the soundness OF his
o,osit,on that there was clear and unnis-
r,his distinction between jurisdiction and
.s,.,sl mower. and that the Bailey proposition
ras unconstitutional
a. Snooner received the closest attention
-, full senate and crowded galleries He
ss no; finish his address, but announced that
A.. vrould do so tomorrow
The fate of the Bailey amendment was un-
.r,,ocallv decided when the Democratic SEN
.,ors held their recent conference, which demon
s,-,tsa the futility OF attempting 20 unite the
-.,,orstv in support of the proposition OF the
Sanstor from Texas. But the Senator from
WISCONSIN regards the principle involved as so
.,,,ical 10 the welfare OF the nation. ana the
sre,ments advanced IN its support as so In
-a1ious ana sophisticaI that he determined TO
Sssl with the subject exhaustively, with the
-. ~ sverting for all time any danger OF an
.,,smpt by Congress so 10 usurp the functions
!, The judiciary He said the Bailey proposition
auf
before Congress In many years
WOULD DESTROY COURTS POWER
rl.,tns drawn a distinction between "juris-
s,.,ior" and judicial power" by decisions or tne
y,r,,es States Supreme Court, Mr.. Spooner urged
.bat were Congress empowered 20 prescribe the
-oetboss 10 he employed by the courts In spe-
leo cases as for instance. TO prohibit the grant
,re o. temporary injunctions in certain class OF
c.sss there could be no limit 10 the cases in
rhi,b such methods might be prescribed. He
,,so held that the enjoyment OF the power 10
rrohbt temporary inJunctions in some cases
Inevitably implied the power to prescribe the
granting OF such temporary injunctions IN others
such limitations and prescriptions. he declared
might be multiplied until the entire judicial
rower Of the courts. which the trainers of the
Constitution had so 5ealously guarded from in
branches Of the government, would be hopelessly
lost merged into and subordinated TO the legis-
lative branch.
Discussing the broad proposition that the
courts must be left free TO grant temporary in
functions where appearances indicated that ir-
reparable injustice would follow postponement
N Injunction until the final decree Of the courts,
Mr. Spooner said that in many instances the
final granting Of the injunction would become
"a solemn farce" and the delay would render
the entire litigation idle. He cited hypothetical
cases showing that often in every day expert
ence the warning given the defendant by the in
tatuuon OF legal proceedings. unaccompanied by
an injunction. would merely serve 10 complete
the injustice which the legal proceedings sought
n avert, as IN the case Of the trustee for an
estate about to engage in dangerous specula-
ton with the trust funds The heirs OF such
estate might save the funds by procuring an in
junction which would operate Immediately TO
estop the speculative investment, whereas suit
without such injunction would either hurry the
objecuonal investment or perhaps serve as a
warning 10 the trustee 10 convert such funds as
stil remained into cash and depart for parts
unknown.
Mr. RAILEYs INTERRUPTIONS
The first interruption by Mr. Bailey was OF a
1ocular nature. but II brought from Senator
Spooner sharp retort regarding interference
hy the Executive or Congress in the exercise
by courts Of their Judicial functions Mr..
Spooner had cited case wherein judge had
Fetorted from the bench on criticisms made by
a. attorney General Of a decision of the court
and Mr. Bailey asked II the Wisconsin Senator
mac heard that Judge Humphries has from the
"heh made reply 10 certain recent criticisms Of
MS decisions iu certain cases Mr.. Spooner re-
- paed that the Texas Senator did not have
lulsdllt.on' 10 PROFOUND that inquiry and
Mf haliey replied that he had judicial power''
20 ask a. Thereupon Senator Spooner congratu-
alea Mr.. Bailey his ability 10 perceive the
uslhouoa, again outlined the functions Of the
'o'lous branches Of government and asserted
eat II would be sorry day for this Republic
r''h the courts should be terrOrized by the
congress or the Executive
AGAIN MI Bailey interrupted 10 say that
."hsiess could abolish equity courts That"
% nj Spooner. is nor the question The
.ehator from Texas inva.ia bly, goes back 10
me question of life or death OF the courts His
an. e'lshoment does not propose TO abolish the
tsi,9 couTts u assumes thar they are alive
-Nu provides for procedure IN equity but pro-
49, 10 hinlt the equity power in the courts
uley exist From that dissent. We are
~ A'Hlg ln England. under an all powerful
p"tti'ellehi The Senator from Texas (Mr.
'~aeJ eNalts the power Of Congress"
a. spooner, IN drawing the distinction be-
.eeH 1ui selection and judicial power" said
- me difference had been understood by the
.a.,efs oi the Constitution and by the text
'-'s SINCE blackstone, ana had been outlined
y many court decisions
s--l-ld4 power is an nGivisible thing while