The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1908-04-09

10 appeals to United States courts Of appeal which,
II these cases be added. might take ten years,
| do not believe In that legislation which viii
cause this result, a. ! doubt also rAsihtr n BE- con-
5fauatOaal 10 take all questions between employer
and employee WAY from the State"
These are Mr.. PARKRR's views Of the
Sterling employers liability bill Of 1908.
His judgment vas rs strong against il
as it Vas against Mr.. R%oosEvELT's pre-
vious pet measure Of 1905, declared, I'm
constitutional last January by the SUI
preme Court Of the United States. His
speech two years ago this April against
the original employers liability bill was
a warning which his party in Congress
did not heed. 1t required the memorable
decisions Of the highest tribunal in the
Howard case and in the Adair Case TO
prove to the country that Mr.. PARKER
was right then and that Mr.. ROOSEVELT
was wrong, ~ was the facile majority
which in spite Of Mr.. PARKER's protest
put through that political measure with
out even the formality of a call Of the
Yeas and Nays. And Mr.. PARKER is no
less convincing now in his protest, along
with Mr.. LITTLEPIRLD, against the pres
ent attempt to patch up that previous
unconstitutional law, riddled by the
courts decision.
Thus far all is clear enough, and Mr..
PARRER's courage and independence
shine even as LUMINOSITY as Mr., LITTLt-
FIELDS, The perpleTity Sbegins when
We turn from the language 81 his report
on the bills unconstitutional, i'll adj
vised and dangerous quality to the
speech, on page 1855 Of the Record, in
which Mr.. PAREER his reason
for parting company with Mr., LITTLE
FIELD and voting for the very measure
he had so vigorously and convincingly
denounced:
Of shall vote for tie bill. Applause on the he.
publican side / shall vote for the bill 10 the
hope that II Will be amended before II is nnslly
passed. 50 as 10 BE- constitutional"
When have we heard anything like
that from a man anything like RICHARD
WAYNE PARKER? On that principle, why
need the conscientious legislator ever hes
itate between the voice Of his conscience
and the urgent appeals Of partisan dis
Cipline? What measure can be so out
rageously bad, so manifestly dishonest
in It's inception and promotion, so pal
pably unconstitutional, that a Congress-
man may not vote for it with the vague
hope that somewhere and somehow the
objections will be removed, the crooked
ness Strengthened, the unconstitutional
ity rectifed, before 1t finally reaches the
statute book? What u lubricant for the
conscience il this theory; what a relief to
the lawmakers sense Of duty and re-
spOnsibility!
SO the Hon. CHARLES T.. LITTLRFIELD
and the Hon. RICHARD WAYNE PARKER
on this occasion parted company. Mr..
L%ITTLEF1ELD, having perceived the I'M
constitutionality Of the Sterling bill,
voted against its enactment, and his Nay
found no echo save from the ceiling Of
the Chamber, Mr. PARKER, equally con-
of the bills unconstitutionality,
positive in his d~enunciation Of
it's provisions, expressed the hope that
it might be amended 80 as to make il
constitutional before it was finally
and proceeded to vote for it
along with the 800, amid applause from
The Republican side.
>That was the difference. Has it come
o this, that in order to dare TO cast u vote
Of conscience, when the same is distaste-
mi to Mr.. ROOSEVELT and obnoxious TO
Mr.. GoMPERs, a Republican statesman
If conspicuous courage and independence
must previously, like Mr.. LlTTLEFGELD,
announce his impending retirement from
public life?