The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-05
THE SUPREME COURT VACANCY

II,ri,ol stotcs s,,nrcno rorrt Ico,cs .
,ncarc, ON tbc bench of ,b,t bioh ,rib.
rn.I ,I,.;oo. rrl,, v,sl,o,,fon in.
a,.,t. NM :, T., ro,oi,.o5 ,. f,ro.
goun conclusion tbnrn tbst ,ujoc uor.
,cc Harmon Tu,fon NJ Nashville Ten.
nossce &c ,o Lc nror,o,nd In tb, ,aron.
cv .udac Iurton was horn in Ken.
tucIv in 1874 He wont an tbc Statc
borch a.. ,h,ucoIIo,. of tho Sivrh Divi.
sion Tennessee in 1879 scrviug four
vears He was Jusr,cc NJ ,bo Snnyomc
/ Courf of Tennessee for six ycors end.
( iug in 1898, and Chief Justice pt the
! state Supreme tour, from January to
| Npril. 1892 He has been iudoe of the
II'. y. Circuit Court sixth mdicial cir-
ruii. since his retirement from the state
bench i'm the wear last named 1t is
argued i'm his supporI that in all the
ono hundred and twenty wears since the
establishment OF the supreme Court.
of tbat court. Judge John Catron. who
served from 1867 10 1879, and .Judre
Howell L. Jackson. who served only
three wears. 1893 10 1895.
II is objected AGAINST JUDGE Lurton
that his home is in the Sixth Judicial
Circuit and that both Justices uarlsnd
and Dav reside in that circuit; and that
TO appoint him world make ouc-third
Of the whole court i'm that one judicial
circuit. 1t is also objected thar Jus.
fice Peckham was from New York. and
that the successor TO him should prop
erly come from the same State. aud in
this connection the name of Judge \. g.
Il. Parker. who ran for President in
1904. is moi only suggested hut warmly
seconded and urged.
There is matter Of highest import
ance which The Supreme Court must
fairly decide in n way that will be TO
the ADVANTAGE of the country. We refer
10 the income tax. and the ruling of the
court AGAINST its validity. At the time
that the court made this ruling Inc
division of the Judges was five against
and -four for the lax. \ number of Judges
have been added since that time, and
it IS not known how the court
would rule on that question now. pro.
vided it should take il up and rule
upon ii de noyo. II IS quite possible
that the court. unless il were radically
cbanged in opinion, might decline to
consider the question again as being
res adudicata. II is of the highest
Importance, however. that the Supreme
Court should rule dccisiyelv and de.
cidedlv in favor of the validity of such
tax. As has been pointedlv said. the
very existence Of the Nation might de-
pend at some crisis upon its ability TO
raise revenues from this source and
others like ii.
In making appointments 10 this
bench. therefore. while il would be high
ly improper TO undertake to pledge
any Judge i'm advance as to his opinion
on the validity of the income tax, we
can see no objection to the Presidents s
deciding. as between two candidates, 10
appoint the ono who is known, or rea-
sonablv surmised TO he in favor Of the
income tax. The four Justices of the
Supremc Court who were i'm favor of
the validity of the lax before. were
not inferior in legal learning, in power
of reasoning. or IN clarity of expires.
sion. man for man. to the FIVE who were
opposed TO if. II is possible. indeed. |
thnt the Supreme Court as at present
might affirm the validity |
of an income tax law. although the !
Judges have not been appointed with !
the least view TO their opinions on that
question. and neither were the Judges |
who ruled upon the law before. either !
adversely or afirmatively.
IT is desirable. of course. 10 avoid !
takino the mdges all or in TOO larrc |
mart from ono particiIar section of fbc |
couutrv II may he said that il makes
M dia,ororco -, tbo l,r,or ,,.;r,;,Ios