The sun., 1909-01-04

hepuDllCan convention 6nould MAKE
a party issue Of his assaults on the
authority of the courts has not yet
been forgotten.
Is it then surprising that GoMPERs
and MITCHELL, for whose politics
support these sinister bids were made
should follow the lawless example oI
the Chief Magistrate2
How easily the moral authority oI
the courts can be impaired by hostile
Executive was strikingly shown in the
conflict OF authority which took place
more than a year ago between the
United States Circuit Court Judge and
the Governor Of North Carolina in the
matter Of enforcing confscatory rates
The United States Court, having full
jurisdiction Of the conference.-the
underlying question being the enforce
ment of the Fourteenth Amendment
granted preliminary relief to preserve
the status in quo until the final de-
termination Of the constitutionality OF
the State statute. The Governor OF
North Carolina defed the authority OF
the United States Court and intimated
his intention to Use the powers Of the
State to subvert its DEGREES. THEODORE
ROOSEVELT instead Of sustaining the
Federal courts sent his Assistant At
torney-General to the Governor OF
North Carolina to secure terms OF
peace, and thus compromised the
authority Of the United States. The
Presidents unwillingness to sustain the
authority Of the Federal courts con-
strained the unhappy railroad which
had sought that forum for protec-
tion to compromise the controversy
1t will be remembered that Judge
PRITcHARD expressed his reluctance
to modify his decree in order to effect
the compromise, as it was substantially
a surrender by a United States court
Of it's clear authority.
Even in his final annual message to
Congress the President could not forego
the opportunity to devote a consid-
cradle portion to the shortcomings OF
the judiciary, and his reasoning as 70
the antiquated political philosophy Of
the Federal Judges followed almost to
the letter the reasoning Of SAMUEL
GoMPERs, who at the time of the DAN
bury Hatters decision not only COM
planned that the Supreme Court was
mot in accord with the spirit Of the
times" but gravely questioned whether
it's Anticipated economics" and its
"medieval' procedure did not make
it "a subject Of serious speculation
whether we might not do better under
some other form of procedure.
Following this criticism, Mr.. RoosE-
WELT in his last message spoke OF
Judges who have Jagged behind the
times and Judges who hold to a
twentieth century economic philos-
ophy." What a spectacle for gods and
men is presented when THEODORE
ROOSEVELT and SAMUEL GoMPEBs-
par mobile fratrrm-sit in judgment on
the nine robed Justices OF the Supreme
Court OF the United Statesl The ven-
cradle Chief Justice of Pennsylvania
at recent dinner in this city thus con-
demned these unprecedented comments
Of the President:
The only Just criticism OF a Judges law must
come from a court which knows the Law and
bss Jurisdiction 10 declare Il. Dissent from his
views based on Individual opinion OF what the
law ought TO be. phethsr u comes from ereeuhs,
or hoodlum. leads directly and BY short steps 20
andrehv-the assertion OF Individual will against
the settled law. The very phrases so prominently
put forward OF Judges who have Jagged behind
the times and Judges who hold to twentieth
century economic philosophy betray not only
ignorance but q deplorsble incapaeity to com.
prehend the fundamental principles OF the Amer.
lean Government"
With such an example Of executive
usurpation it was not unnatural that
GoMPERs, MITCHELL and MORRISON
followed the example Of their illustrious
fellow member Of the Federation and
contemptuously disregarded the law.
When the chief servant of the State
sworn above all others TO execute the
laws, contemptuously consigns the
law as to certain classes to desuetude,
is it surprising that ignorant men,
having no official relation TO the en-
forcement of the law and under no
obligation other than citizenship, should
feel that as TO them the law was i'm
potent either to protect or punish?
THEODORE ROOSEVELT indifference
10 the offended dignity Of the Supreme
Court was strikingly shown in the
Shipp case two years ago. A man
had been convicted Of a capital crime
in the State courts OF Tennessee and
sentenced TO death. His counsel filed
a petition for a habeas corpus in the
Circuit Court of the United States