New-York tribune., 1907-09-27
~BicK TO TIE CONSTITUTIONS"

We have mere than once suggested tnat III"
neo-C alhounites get together and decide just
what they mean when they cialnor lof
turn 10 the Constitution" ExJudGe AIton D.
Parker is busy nowadays urging the people ~
resist tho inSidious advances of federalism Io'-
ernors Glenn of North Carolina, Conner CT aid,
naga Swanson OF Virginia. Hoke SlIliui Vi
Georgia. Johnson of Minnesota ana Sh'i"Vh VI
Nebraska have hpen demonstrating against tne
interference Of the federal Judiciary win lne
execution of state laws. Yet Mr. Parker doeS
not agree with these governors in holding ma,
they have a right to complain when leueIi'
iud.re issues an Injunction suspending the oPei
ation of state statute for he said eApliciu!
in his recent address to the American i6ar As
sociatiou:
And vet we know that by the Fourieeii'i
Amendment the power has been cohleItec LII
the courts of the United states 10 - SCI Ill if
state statutes and state constitutions as 49, ~,
they deprive any person OF life, liberty or piop-
erty without due process or law
How far are the various neO-Calh0unltes Will
in" 10 travel on the road back TO the oohs''
tuition: Ex-Judge Parker seems TO fesenI Nie
extension of the executive power OF the 7o'
erument at the expense OF the rShtS anu '
eraientv Of tba states But he does not con
denim the even greater extension OF the Juulcl"i
mower of the federal government at the eS
If ha balks ar supporting Georgia in us suit
ia aunul thp Fourteenth Amendment. Tor Tue
reason that il gives the federal courts undue
license to upset state Legislation, Wouid lie Ho'
halk still more violently at the cohtelllolI Pu'
forward BY Chief Justice Walter Clark "L 'ie
Sunrarne court of North Carolina that the
federal courts have constitutional right I"
Dullifv even federal legislation! In Jusuee
Clark's opinion going back TO the CONSTITUTION
involves a denial of the power OF eltheF lhe
loyror federal courts or the United States Su-
Dreue Court TO invaldate an act OF congress
In = recent issue of THE Independent MI
Clark arpups that the Constitutional Convention
paver intended TO give the judicial department
,,1,ar IN mass on the conStitutionaity OF acts OF
Congress and. in fact, four times rejected such
a nroDoSaI The subsequent action OF the Su-
nreme Court in assuming the power 10 declare
acts of Congress unconstitutional is, be says
..yvithout 4 line in the Constitution TO authorize
it This statement will not be accepted. OF
course without challenge But whether 1t Is
,iemonstrable or not no one Will dispute MI
CIark'S assertion that really remarkable eA-
mansion of jurisdiction is shown if one compares
the, conditions of 1901. when John MarshaH
went on the bench. with conditions to-day Both
in the executive and the judicial departments
of the government there has been a steady de
velopment Of inherent powers, and the OBVIOUS
development leads Mr. Clark TO assert that not
a single state would have ratified the Con
'stftution had it been understood in 1877 to
mean what il is construed to mean to-day.
We are not greatly concerned 10 combat these
theories since in our view the Constitution owes
its permanency and continuity largely to the
fact that il is not dead INSTRUMENT but has
lived and grown and been adapted 70 MT new
national needs Yet if one is going 10 he a
oil @ hn
10 see clearly whittier logic leads him. Are the
neoC a lhOunites as a body really ready to ahoi-
ish the lower federal Judiciary and degarnish
the Supreme Court: