Los Angeles herald., 1908-07-08

In hand, to execute his own decrees
which, as young Brewer so often in
terpreted, were not in keeping with
the great democratic law of the land.
"Aln governments derive their inst
powers from the consent of the gov
erned."
Suppose that at the time of which
am speaking David's father had sug-
gested that the court" his teacher
"be given greater power" what think
you David would have done? I know.
He would have got out an Injunction
at once, and restrained the teacher.
Why is 1t, then, that after more than
sixty years Of strenuous effort to make
good his early Interpretation of peda-
gogic law as it affected "the gov
erned,' he comes now, in the sere and
yellow leaf of his earthly pilgrimage.
to enforce upon his own posterity and
the rest of us law which himself was
not able to bear?
Justice Brewer again says: "The re-
stralning power of the equity court is
worth vastly more than the Furnishing
power Of the criminal court" Worth
more to whom? To those against whom
the law, in Its enactment, was princi-
pally aimed? IF SO, 1 don't dispute his
position, for the trusts and other
combinations of wealth are almost the
only ones to derive benefit from 1.-THE
L I
usually the poor against whom the
injunction is lodged by our courts.
They are thus, in so many instances.
not In all, to be sure, deprived of the
constitutional rights, and their rich
neighbors profit accordingly.
am willing to leave it with Justice
Brewer himself, and to rest the whole
case just here. If the injunction does
not in almost every case operate
against the poor and in favor of the
rich. Answer, Justice Brewer
incidentally, 1t is to be hoped that
the national Democratic convention{
will be so pronounced upon the subject
of the injunction and the authoritN
and the extent of the power of thd
courts to enforce it as to leave noA
doubt in the mind of any as to what
this great party of the people does
teach on the subject, and that their
pronouncement upon the subject will
be so clearly and Enthusiastically in
accordance with the provisions of the
constitution, the rights of the people
so hedged about that none Of their
rights will be lost or jeopardized as
to leave the courts without excuse in
their Interpretation and application
of it.
Preserve the law of Injunction. of
course. but let it be so written and
defined as to leave no doubt as to it's
meaning and the scope of it's applica-
ton, not by giving the courts more
power" but contrarywise, by giving
to the individual citizen a broader free
dom under the aegis of the constitu-
ton, by whose fiat alone can any law
be made for the government of the
people.
Otherwise, as the ominous trend to
Capitalization of government in GER
tain quarters surrounds us, the day is
not distant when, instead of a govern
ment of the people, for the people by
the people," we will have a govern
ment by injunction for the trusts.
Do not Justice Brewers words imply
haps, and do we not feel in the very
political air we breathe that there is a
growing sentiment to take government
from the people, in whose hands alone
all power and authority reside, and to
place 1t in the hands of irresponsible
agents? See, may not say, from the
president all along down the whole line
Of official occupation, a tendency to
substitute the will Of the agent for
the will of the people, the agents
master. And often this Is the result,
simply OF caprice or prejudice.
Why, even Justice Brewer says:
"Give the courts q free hand" This
means, in It's final analysis, that the
courts know better what the people
need than they do themselves. and
that they should have the unrestrained
right to give it to them, although it
might not be what they needed or
wanted at all.
ITO restrict the power of the courts
is a step backward toward barbarism,"
iD6aadf