The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-12-19

cern Laws have been enacted. and are being advocated. imposing onerous regulations largely increasing the bur dens. A law has been enacted giving to a commission mandatory powers to fix rates. the avowed purpose being to reduce the rates.
 The attitude of the government. through its administration. Is distinct ly antagonistic to railway interests. It must be conceded that the railways do bear their portion of the burdens Of the government, pay their full propor- tion of the taxes Millions of dollars derived from direct or indirect taxa- ton are expended annually to improve and maintain improvements of water ways. with the failacious intention or creating or intensifylng competition with the railway lines. Government reports show. at least in ono instance, where after having expended several millions of dollars to improve water way the cost of supervising and main- taining such improvement per anuum exceeded the vasue of all of the proper ty transported via such improved wa terway. May we not at least infer that he who favors the purchase by Ithe government oe the property of the railway companies, although we may not agree as to the wisdom of such policy, is a juster. man than he who would confiscate the property because, forsooth, i've have the votes, elect the legislature and. governors, eject ana appoint the Judges and serve on the iuries.'
 Criticisfng Judges.
 President Roosevelt has In two am
 nual messages to Congress sharply criticised two of the Federal Judges, coordinate department of government. because they have, in the performance of their duties, rendered decisions not satisfactory to him. He. and the De partment of Justice, have. In euect' pursued a course of intimidation not heretofore attempted. When it is con sidered that the President appoints the Judges, which includes their promotion' if is not too much to characterize his conduct as dastardly His plaint is that the Government has not the right of appeal, and that the decisions which . he denounces were final. Are the judges at fault because the laws of the country do not provide an appeal in criminal cases? As am advised, since
 the creation of the Government, the law has been that man accused or crime and acquitted cannot be again tried for the same ofkense-hi life and liberty may not again be jeopardized.
 Tine justice of such law will not think be denied, but were it other- wise, are the Judges to blame2 should they have decided the alleged criminal to be guilty because the Government does not, under existing statutes, have the right to appeal. if decided other wise? If the law be q wise and hu-
 mane one. must it be changed to suit the
 Caprice of Chief Executives The Judge who had the misfortune
 to be criticised by the President in his last annual message to Cogress, and his hopes of preferment, if any, thus destroyed, in addition to decldlng tnAt tho nerson accused was not guilty, also decided that the act of Congress defin- 1 ing the crime was unconstitutional, and | is being severely criticised for his
 temerity in deciding that an act that has been passed by both houses Of
 Congress, and approved by the then President, is not legal enactment. Published reports charge that the President, so far as he may have the