Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-11-09


gravity a his oeams. . A mar
now charged with . ceane 10 furntshst
the most complete opportunity fo'
making his dsesuse. The reA
sons which II some sense Justified the
former attttuds Of the courts havs
Therefore dissDDsarsd, save perhaps n
capital cases. and the question IL. shall
We adhere to . psinoipls based upon
conditions no longer existing
The rest Of this Interesting aud con-
vincing opinion any lawyer may nnd
for himself by referring TO Hack vs.
the state. 1?l Northwestern Reporter
page 4e3.
Much criticism has come to Col
Roosevelt because he presumed to at
tack decision Of the supreme court
He quoted such critics by saying that
his words were only q repetition OF 4
majority opinion Of the court. Refer
ing to this Golfers editorial IS still
good reading:
HIS views on the Rakeshop case
are among the objections raised 10 MIR
Roosevelt. In our opinion even the
conservative crowd Will aoon fully ac-
cept those views. Section lie Of the
New York labor laws definitely under
took 20 limit the hours OF work IN
bakeries to sixty hours ,n any one
week, and the same act covered drain
age, plum bing. wash-rooms. sleeping
places. and other conditions affecting
the health OF laborers. The highest
court in New York state upheld this
statute. Then along came the supreme
court OF the United States. and by a
majority OF one overturned the statute
as unconstitutional We are frank to
call this decision a stupid outrage. AS
Justice White, perhaps the sounoest
Judge on the supreme bench. pointed
out. IT is ridiculous, when some OF the
highest authorities and nvastiga tors
are convinced that more than sixty
hours a week in a bakeshoo are dele
terious. 10 pretend that taera is not
even a scintlla of rea son FOR holding
that belief. 1t is admitted mat q court
has no RICH. to interfere with legisla-
tion in such case s this. unless II
can say. not that it disagrees with the
legislature. but that the legislature had
absolutely no ground whatever for he
lievirg what it said. The late Mr.
Justice Peckham in q sheeriy foolish
opinion, observed:
II Is unfortunately tfu- indt iaepf'
ever in any department., may possibly
carry with it the seeds Of unhealth-
ness but are all on thar account AT
the mercy of legislative najor:.ies
At whose mercy would MI Justice
Peckham have preferred "a have us?
Would he have preferred II nave US all
at the mercy of a majority Of one. in a
court which. bv the concession Of the
judges themselves. knew almost moth
ing about the actual facts" Mr.. Jus
,ice Peckham also said:
This interference on tha pa. ~ ihe
legislatures OF the several states with
the ordinary trades and occupa ons OF
the people seems 10 be on the increase.
It IS on the increase. because the peo-
Pie wish 10 have it on the Increase, and
who was Mr. Justice Peckham ma, he
should have undertaken to .eg:s.a,e on
every subject for every STATE II this
broad country? The supreme court
justice is put on the bench 20 over;urn
statutes when they beyond all possible
doubt. conAic, With some provision OF
the constitution He ia showing dan
Rerous arrogance. likely 20 have bad
consequences. when he interprets his
DUTY to be the overthrow OF every en-
actment which he. in his all embracing
wisdom. does not happen TO approve