The Boise citizen. (Boise, Idaho) 1906-1910, 1907-02-15
Courts And The Law

A cynic has said that we misuse Ian
guagc when we call our legal tribunals
courts of justice We ought, he AYERS,
to call them courts of injustice. With
out accepting his opinion in its some
what rash positiveness we may admit
that there are many facts which excuse
if they do not support it, says the Ore
gonian. There is no denying that some
times the courts lend themselves with
singular facility to the advancement Of
the predatory schemes of the trusts. The
story of the relations between the Gas
Trust of New York and the federal
district court which has become the fos-
ter father of its interests against the
people is quite likely to remain classical
as an illustration of what the law can
do to make plumber easy and justice
difficult A committee of the New York
legislature, after painstaking investiga-
ton and with every wish to be fair in
the premises, found that the gas trust
could make gas at so cents thousand.
To allow the monopoly fair profit, the
legislature, acting on the facts found
by the committee, fixed the price at so
cents a thousand. This is a net profit
of one-third, or SO 1-3 per cent.
A farmer who could make such
return as this from his investment by
dint of 10 hours work a day and no
holidays or Sundays, would dance with
JOY, but the gas trust called it conhsca-
ton. Such are the different ideals which
those acquire who live respectively on
their own work and on the work of
others Following the invariable rule
of all the big miscreants when they get
into trouble, the gas trust hied itself
and there the trust found comfort and
consolation. The court fastened to cast
over the shivering shoulders of the mo-
nopoly an injunction, that mantle which
warns and soothes so many bereft pi
rates and shields so many predaceous
millionaires from threatened punish
ment The injunction forbade the Of
fcers of the state of New York to en-
force the legislative act which set the
price of gas at 80 cents and permitted
the monopoly to charge its old price of
ST. The difference, however, was to
be held in trust to be restored to the
consumer when the court has made up
its mind whether the rate of 80 cents
a thousand is conhscatory or not if it
ever does. The opposite question
whether the old rate of ST confscates
the property of the consumer of course
does not disturb the judicial serenity in
the least
This case is of more than local in
terest because it illustrates clearly the
distinction between proper and improper
use of the federal authority, and the at
titude of the trusts in each instance. The
proper exercise of federal authority, that
is in matters which are beyond the adj
equate control of the states, is bitterly
resisted by the trusts When it is at
tempted they shrek usurpation and cry
that the sacred doctrine of state rights
is infringed. Thus the federal author
ity to regulate the railroads, to oversee
the transportation of food products and
to check the evil of child labor is denied
by every predatory corporation in the
country. While, on the other hand, all
these interests are a unit in asserting
that the federal courts have authority to
override state legislation in matters
purely local. though common sense de-
clares that this ought to belong to the
states exclusively. Herein is the beau
ty of monopolistic consistency. Where
the federal government could advance
the public welfare it has no authority /;
where the states could act in the interest
of the public they also have no au-
thority Thus the monopolies, should
the trust theory prevail, are altogether
without restraint and may plumber with
free hand.