The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1908-04-09


ON the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the
liatter's case has been commented
upon by many newspapers all over
the country. We wish we could
think the general trend of the
comment intelligent, honest or
helpful. We regret to say that
these qualities are mostly CON
SpIcuous by their absence from
nearly all of the criticisms and at
tacks to which this journal and
its editor. as well as the American
Federation of Labor itself, have
been subjected. In not few cases.
gross, malicious, vicious misrepre-
>cnt:,tion has been recklessIy re-
sorted to, the evident purpose be-
ing 10 poison the public mind
against the American Federation
.! Labor and to represent the
latter as Il criminal combination
that ought to be prosecuted and
suppressed.
several papers have used the
phrase Opposition to the Supreme
'ourt' in describing our attitude.
They know better. On the CON
trary. while protesting against its
injustice we stated that we accept
ed the decision as the law of the
land. We also expressed our be-
lief in the integrity and honesty of
the court, in it's desire to construe
the laws and legal principles so as
to insure equality of rig ht and
imnunities. But, at the same
time, we venture to criticise the
reasoning of the court, to point out
some mistakes of fact and of logic.
Is this opposing the court' in
any Objectionable sense? Has not
the court be criticised before by
Democrats, by Republicans by
f"DuliSts, by independents Was
not the Philippine tariff and flag
decision criticised even by promin-
"nt members of Congress Since
when has the Supreme Court been
above temperate and fair criticism 2
hat law or doctrine is there to
prevent a citizen, whether in public
or private life, or the editor of "a
newspaper or magazine from eN-
pressing his opionions as to the
justice or sOundneSS of court
rulings?
Our rapid and dishonest critics
have either forgotten, or else
choose to ignore, the fact that the
Judges of the Supreme Court itself
hay" criticised its decisions. Dis
SCI ing opinions are certainly not
"Ac"ptional, and some Of them
nave been severe, spirited and
m%hiy controversial. In the in
come tax decision the minority
Judges displayed much feeling in
;"illtlng the arguments of the ma
in'itI. and the press of the coun-
Try commented at the time on the
'arn"StneSs and spirit with which
l.." court was "opposed." In
the lottery case the chief justice,
.& dissenting, told the court that
h' construction of the constitution
-"Hdcd to preserve the form only
'i jhat charter, while destroying
..N substance and meaning. In
..'r Arago ease (Robertson VS..
:''.dwim) the dissenting opinion
@0Faigned the majority decision
''''H opinion of the court as en-
>idN tiA 1ueSc 1liSUtllceS
.,t" be multiplied indefinitely.
" vT" the minority judges oppos-
'!'I aud attacking the courts in
.A''>" cases Did any one assail
-A''n Tor their vigorous dissent
r"" "utSpoken criticisms No;
iaaoN cordially endorsed their at
1'G'y" and praised their candor
""'- Independence as, indeed, they
''+,'iNed to be praised.
\n"ther favorite phrase that has
'r" greatly overworked is that
VIZ Gompers overules the
"pr"me Eourt.'' The thought
'.~- may be led astray by such mis-
81 language, but to the sensible
Us sufficiently plain that argu-
'i".t'. criticism, and discussion of
'!"@ISIon do not constitute cover
lmpotent rage and
-lgmIty alone can inspire cheap,
misrepresentation of this sort.
I''It we have gone farther than
..'HAilVc criticism and discussion
20" nave favored and announced
use OF the power and influence
..Erl l-,L,,- ,rI