Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1910-09-01

In a speech in Denver, Colorado, on
Monday, former President Roosevelt
boldly criticised certain decisions of the
United States Supreme Court, which, he
asserted, were contrary to the principles
of democratic form OF government and
inimical to the welfare OF the people He
referred to the Knight Sugar Trust case,
in which the Supreme Court, under cover
OF what he called "highly technical le-
gal subtety," handed down a decision
which rendered it practically impossible
for the nation effectively to control the
use ofmasses Incorporate capital in inter
State business. Said he: "ThiS was
decision nominally against national rights,
but really against popular rights" The
second case 10 which Mr.. Roosevelt re-
ferred was the so-called bakershop case,
and he said of it:
"In New York city, as in most large
cities, the baking business is likely to
be carried on under unhygienic condi-
lions, conditions which tell on the well
fare OF the general public. The New
York Legislature passed and the New
York Governor signed bill remedying
these improper conditions. New York
State was the only body that could deal
with them; the nation had no power in
the matter. I he Governor and the Leg
iSlature alone had the affirmative power
to remedy the abuse But the Supreme
Court OF the United States possessed,
and unfortunately exercised, the negative
power OF not permitting the abuse to be
remeded. BY five-to-four vote they
declared the action in the State of New
York unconstitutional, because, forSooth,
that men must not be deprived of their
liberty to work under unhygienic con-
ditions. They were, OF course, them
selves powerlesS to make the remoteSt
attempt to provide a remedy for the
wrong which undoubtedly existed, and
their refusal TO permit action by the State
did not confer any power upon the nation
TO act. In effect this decision reduced to
impotence the only body which did have
power, so that in this case the decision,
although nominally against State rights,
was really against popular rights, against
the democratic principles of government
by the people under the form of law. If
such decisions as these two indicated the
courts permanent attitude, there would
be real and grave cause for alarm, for
such decisions, if consistently followed
up, would upset the whole system ofpop-
ular government"
We cannot but admire Mr. RooSevelt's
courage in striking at this great evil. II
is worth while to call attention to the fact
that the Supreme Court, supposed to be
the final safeguard of the rights of the
people, in reality on occasions is inimical
to the public interests. 1t is whispered
and il ought to be proclaimed from the
housetops-that its decisions are almost
invariably on the side of the corporations.
The members of the Court are fallible, and
if they do wrong they should be criticised.
MIR. Roosevelt might have taken occa-
sion, while he was on the subject, to ex-
press some pertinent opinions concern
ing the action of certain federal judges,
who in these latter days do not hesitate
to set aside legislative enactmentS that
happen TO be displeasing to railroads or
other corporations, thus multiplying the
will OF great commonwealth as express
ed through their proper representatives.
This is also another evil under the sun.