Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1908-04-21
FROM TIE
THE SPHERE OF THE STATE.
MIR. BRYAN'S PAPER

court, sustaining the federal judges in
North Carolina and Minnesota, focuses
public attention upon subject, con-
sideration of which can not be much
longer delayed: Shall the lower fed
eral courts have jurisdiction to sus-
pend the laws of the various states be-
fore the state courts have had an OPP
portunity to pass upon those laws?
The newspapers which take their In
spiration from the large corporations
are congratulating the country that
property is made more secure by the
decision, and that vested interests are
rescued from peril. How long will
these papers be able to deceive the
public and to mislead their readers?
Property is In no danger and vested
interests are not imperiled. The laws
OF the states can be depended upon to
protect property rights and vested
interests. The question is simply a
question of dealing with corporations.
Shall the corporations be regarded as
superior to the natural man? That is
the only question involved. If natur-
al man locates in state and engages
in business he must rely upon the
state courts for his protection. The
state protects him In his life, in his
liberty and in his property and he re-
sorts to the courts of the state when
he seeks to enforce a right. Under
the present laws and decisions 1t Is
different with the corporation. A rail-
road corporation can be organized in
the state Of New Jersey and proceed to
engage In business in any Of the 46
states of the union; 1t gets from the
state license to build railroad; it
uses the power of eminent domain
and condemns land; the state laws
protect its property and the lives of
Its employees, but when citizen sues
the railroad for more than $4,000, or
the state attempts to regulate the rail-
road, the railroad contemptuously
turns its back upon the state and the
courts Of the state and drags its ad-
versary into the United States court.
Why should state be so impotent
when it deals with corporation
which owes so much to the state?
If the state passes a rate law the
railroad at once enjoins the enforce
ment of the law on the ground that 1t
is unconstitutional. While the courts
are deciding this question the state
stands helpless The law has not been
declared unconstitutional by any
court, and yet, the state is not per-
mitted to enforce 1t. If, after months
or years of litigation, the United States
hot To- t.
constitutional, then during all the In
tervening time the state has been pre-
vented from enforcing constitutional
law. Why not give to the state courts
rather than to the railroads the benefit
OF the presumption? Why clothe
corporation with privileges so much
superior to those of the natural man?
The Democrats of congress are right
In urging the passage of law with
drawing from the circuit and district
courts of the United States power to
suspend state laws. Let every corpo-
ration doing business In the state sub
NIT Its controversies to the courts of
the state, and thus put itself upon the
same footing with domestic corpora
lions and with individual residents. II
the state courts deny the corporation
Justice, the corporation still has its
appeal from the highest state court to
the United States supreme court. Is
not this protection enough?
The big corporations and their de-
tenders, conscious of the weakness of
their cause, constantly confuse the
issue. The question is, not whether
property shall be protected, for the
state has as much interest as the ma
ton in the protection of property:
the question is, shall the corporation
be brought down to the level of the
God-made man, or shall it be made an
object of worship? The Democrats are
right in insisting that the state shall
not be deprived of its power to pro-
tect its citizens, and that federal rene
dies shall be added to state remedies,
not substituted for them. There is no
disposition anywhere to deny to the
federal government its constitutional
authority, but the jurisdiction of the
district and circuit courts of the
United States is regulated by con-
gress and congress ought to withdraw
the jurisdiction which the lower fed
eral courts are now using to the
prejudice of the states and citizens Of
the states.