Mexico weekly ledger., 1908-04-30

In poinl OF time n comnunic~tVu 49,
sS5srs Se y Sglsu ago AS the nation In
creases In population n power aa simc
snd spaco oontlnue 10 be annihilateu, 50
must our commerce broaden Ipaos "
strictions abroad breed trade retaLisuons
at home. Lawful hse1s ~
special privileges 10 protect IL ~ Wnnss
oniy freedom OF opportunity 20 exercise
ts faculties and employ Its resources,
The tariff schedules were never higneI
than they are nov During the clNh vs.
the schedules were greatly ~
~ The country for the internal revenue
tax they had TO pay. Although tnls IN
ternal revenue tns was taken on years
ago. the manufacturers. by cVinnlnllsi
have had political and financial inIaehee
enough TO control the congress, and nave
h.en aisle 10 defeat any just revision OF
the tariff. An attack upon n paIt "
the tariff schedules Is resisted By the en-
tire list OF protected m~onopollSS. these
monopolies keep their paid nsenss IN
Washington, infesting the halls o. I'M
the people. Indeed. for many years con-
cress has not iegisiated on the tarih out
has simply ratified the schedules handed
In by the b~enehciaries Of the tarin. Wltn-
out the use Of improper influences olrset-
ly or Indirectly, oppressive tarin priv
leges whereby a few are enriched az tne
expense Of the many, could not stand ~
the face Of the manifest welfare anu
wish OF the people. The tariu schsduues
should be revised without delay. II tne
protective tariff as now arranged y uh-
iust il can not be corrected too speedhy,
and any OF the correction Is
unfair to he people. II this system OF
taxing the people without their consent,
and usually without their knoWieoee' ~
ever TO be remedled II must be done not
by those, who think II is right but py
who know II Is wrong n VINO WANT
to right the wrong.
Trusts.
Until these tariff privileges are ertai-
Gated the trust question can never De sat
isfactorily settled. II is well enough 70
prosecute the trusts n IT Is better sun
to put some Of the heads OF trusts ~
stripes for violating the law, but u ~
hardly practicable to suppress the trusts
with one hand while the other is teedlng
them with the meat of protection on
which they have grown fat ana arrogant
who enjoy special privileges CON
ferred by law condemn governments ~
peryision Of public service corporations as
destructive OF individual effort, yet they
inconsistency contend that they can not
alone and must nav the support OF
tariff privileges. II Is not paternal Tor
the people to exercise a wise regulation
of corporate affairs, for the conduct OF
such affairs is not the sole concern OF the
private persons engaged IL them, but me
concern of the entire people. The regula-
ton OF public utilities protects the peopie
against mon0polies; the tarin protects
m~onopolies against the people. The claim
that some Of the greatest trusts in the
world need protection against the poorly
equipped industries OF less favored coun-
tries, is manifestly unsound.
State Rights.
The democratic party should resolutely
for the preservation Of the rights OF
the states that were guaranteed 10 them
in the formation of the republic. When
the states came together in convention TO
form a more perfect union each was as IN
dependent and sovereign as Italy or Ger
many is to-day. For the common good
certain powers were delegated TO the Fed
eral Government. reserving. however, TO
the people OF the states all powers not so
delegated. The Federal Government de-
riyes its authority wholly from the people
Of the states. and beyond this express au-
thority and what necessarily IL implied
from II, It car not Justly so. The states
are limited only by their constitutions and
by the power conferred on the Federal
Government. Many instances have arisen
OF late where the authority Of the states
10 make and enforce Just and reasonable
laws has been limited or taken away,
The rule has always been that the pre-
sumption 10 In favor OF the sovereign,
Laws nave always been presumed 10 be
good until found 10 be bad. Under the
new doctrine n state statute Is suspended
indefinitely by injunction upon the more
application Of some special Interest, The
effect Of this practice N 90 place in the
hands " special interests power to defeat
ans state legislation they do not like.
Instead OF laws being presumed TO be
valid until found to be invalid. the pre-
sumption In now reversed. and they are
virtually held TO be bad until determined
This practice Of suspending state
statutes upon ex-parte application has
been defended by high authority upon the
ground that II h laws are eventually
found 70 be invalid there would be no one
10 make the loss good to the interests az
fected. On the other hand, X might be
asked II after weary years Of litigation
while a statute OF a state IS suspended by
injunction. 1t Is determined hat the stat
ute Is valid. who will make the loss good
10 the people OF the state2 To say that
each individual could bring suit for the
amount due him is to afford virtually no
remedy at all. for the expenses Of lItiga-
tion in each case would be greater than
any amount that could be recovered. The
state is a partner In the railroads but the
tend ICY Of the federal courts has been to
ignore the partnership rights OF the state
cial interests involved. A statute OF the
state Of Minnesota regulating railroad
passenger rates wal recently held by the
highest court invalid on the ground that
tne penaltlee provided were so great th1t
Il virtually prevented a railroad from go
ing into court to test its validity. II 1t be
wrong TO keep a railroad from going into
court to determine its rights. IT would
seem to be wrong to enioin a state
through Its officers from going into court
to find out what its rights are. The
rights Of special interests are becoming
superior to the rights Of a sovereign
state for the special interests can not be
enjoined from going into court. while the
sovereign state can be. The decision Of
the supreme court In the Minnesota case.
as Justice Harlan points out in his dis
senting opinion, in effect repeats the 18th
Amendment to the Federal Constitution,
the object Of which was to preserve the
sovereignty of the states by providing
they could not be sued. By this decision
the federal courts can enjoin the state
officials from enforcing state laws and
suspend the operation of n VS. pending lit
igation. There is now given railroads. for
INSTANCE, q veto power Of NJ state legis-
lation. All that is necessary to overcome
the Will of the people Of a state as ex-
pressed In their law IL for some non-res-
ident stakeholder to file an affidavit with
the federal court and an injunction issues
against the state officials practically null
lifylng the law. II after years OF lltiga-
ton. the law IN the meantime being s1s-
pended. the court finally determines il 10
be valid. the necessarily for II will have
passed away with the changed conditions.
The result Is unless the consent Of n rail-
road can be obtained TO pending legisla-
ton the state Is powerless TO control II.
No good citizen desires TO be unjust to
railroads. but they should be regulated
and the state should not be left as mere
subjects Of their benevolenee. Yet to this
humillating position the states are re-
dneed. A half dozen important laws OF
the state Of Missouri are now emhalmed
by the federal injunction veto. In the
fnnru ~ 1roaFa uThoF, the - A-tma
they may be held valid, but they might
as well be nulliied at once as TO be siia-
pended by injunction until their vitality
is gone. The freight rate law Of Mis-.