Coeur d'Alene evening press. (Coeur d'Alene, Idaho) 1907-1929, 1908-04-06

WASHINGTON, April 5.-Strange-
indeed, a reversal of fundamental
rinciples underlying the social sys-
m of the United States-the over
IN of unlimited competition and
substitution of legalized trusts
I'D combinations-has been pro-
bsed, and a bill is actually before
ngress, yet probably not one in 10
the people of the country real
es it,
Also, the most enthusiastic friends
the proposed law do not deny that
enactment would be one of the
ost radical steps toward a COM
eteIy centralized government which
IS ever been taken by the republic.
Another remarkable thing lately
ming to notice is the federal SUI
eme courts decision, Justice Har-
dissenting, that the Minnesota
Sc was valid, which meant that at
" time a litigant may ask and get
pm a federal subordinate court an
JUNCTION against the enforcement of
tate statute, before the state courts
We had a chance to pronounce as
its constitutionality.
Delegates, Not Issues.
Political comment just now as a
lie is on the question of candidates,
d it is delegates, not issues, which
ople seem anxious about. But not
few marvel at the equanimity with
hich a nation has received these
aazing changes in the social order.
Thoughtless people have been say
that there were no differences be-
cen the democrats and republicans
these days; yet on these questions
entioned it is apparent that a sharp
es of division has been drawn al
ady, and that the line heretofore
timing the boundaries of the two
rites describes the demarkation be-
cen the two sections of thought on
ese great matters.
State Sovereignty.
The matter of the relation between
federal and state courts seems
nple enough as to the two schools
thought already developed. The
publicans (that is, the majority
atend that any litigant should BIZ
mitted at any moment to appeal tc
federal courts for protection
inst what he regards as contem
ted invasion of his constitutions
hts.
Fhe democrats (the majority Of
M argue that the Minnesota case
a completely organized system o.
e courts, in which first should
BE questions as to the constitution
y of Minnesota statutes; tina
en-, If ever, the Minnesota Tor an!
er state) supreme court should
e decided adversely to the consti
onal rights of a litigant, it would
proper to appeal to the federal.
he one eomprehends the mainte
ce of the integrity of the stat
EN- according to the Jeffersonial
the other is distinctly upbuilt a
hilton would have had 1t. Tn,
gives the central government
tier power, the other maintain
state supreme up to the pOin
1t is possible to maintain it.
tier many conversations witt
ie men of both parties, anon
bers of congress and in the on
here. one is forced to accept tn
Oing as honestly and impartial
essing the framework of the Is
which have been evolved froT
contentious of the past FEY
tbs for discussion in the comm
paign.
Trust Law.
is denied by none that the Pre-
to enact a Law permitting CON
lions in reasonable" restrain c
is the most significant of a
ent issues. IL transcends In i'm
anee even the issue Of the court
the latter being policy suscept
pr reversal. the former involvin
investiture of vested rights" b
enactment which would b
ged never. and never could b
nged.
ny supreme court could assume
rent attitude toward the questiO
Interpretation or enforcement {
ntatnfna. m anhannnanf coz