Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1910-10-29

},pstaclc to its enforcement if it be Il
,inding law. W" will therefore con-
>.der the proposition solely as if the
factor of local opinion Us to its juStir,
.;'aS eliminated from controversy. Y
"&urt may err in its estimate of what
It's state really did consider inju> dee.
The position assumed by the court
on this question is without precedent
and is entirely mtenablc in the light
# the judicial history of the United
states. If a federal right cannot be
The basis Of a plaintiffs claim in a
STATE court; if those courts derive their
power ana authority and compensa
ton from the state for the purpose Of
@riding; only controversies arising un-
;"r the law Of the state written ana
inWrlttcn then defence based upon
7 federal right would be equally un i
enforceable in said courts.
The federal law is Imperative. man
atorI. and paramount over every
foot of the soil of every state. If is
II" sense foreign when its application
or enforcement is sought in the courrs
J. state. NO policy of d state can
hp2lr us Imperative obligation. No
'FHcial Of state. sworn to support
'he constitution Of the United States
an donN the enforcement of 2 statutn
81 the United States, mad in nnrsn-
ahCe OF the United States Constjtutio,
Nuch law by the Constitution is n,ado
IN" supreme law Of the land anythi,c
IN IN" Constitution or laws of IN.
N'''te To the contrary notwithstanding
ii'N can q Judge of q state co1rt do-
~ tiie imperative obligation of p fed
court? III ms
i"re lie can lawfully assume tbe
"''VS as Suc!i S,atv lud4r No * t,,;,,,,
'"tl IN obcdicnce of trio pvnro..
'NP''ir'm"hts of the Cunstituti,n TO-
y pp'ft ~" Constitutions of IN. 1-ni+,i
N'Al"S Federal laws are nor fannnl
''' In"1 q" judicial colrteel. of
state courts to be enforcrabla i, III,
courts Of some states MA !. IL
as" enforcement in others ,rb.,.
are The supreme laws IL ,ha ,.,,,',
''l iE" Judges IN every STAT, si,a,,
-" bound thcreby.o
AGAIN hold that this severe crit
"!Nlh "i your position by the com
''''' on TIE Judiciary of the son
cue - iIiiN justified by the facts. and
''7' certainty warrants the use Of th.
I'M i'etr"%leSSive" as applied TO
l"S''rn' You continued-"Tho
'"tut" rannCt be regarded in mis-
Sp''t as 'nc made for the nrotac-
''I Ell an ignorant and imprl1dent
'IASS' such as the acts rrcartin.,
SHlpping articles. The en1rl,yes 81.
r''lir"ad company are in .cnaraI
h'h "l An"r" than ordinary intari-
%"hrt. the dangerous nature ~ H.,
business requires ana Secures tbis
r%lnut hr regarded as ono o,dn
I"F IN" protection of train hands ~.
II covers every ki,d of emplovmart
II denies them ono and ali iiat M
rrty "f contract which tho Constitu-
'l"h o. the nit ID Stats secures ia
every person within their iurisdic-
ton"
IN ihlS statement You practically
admit that acts of Congress- for ,ba
protection Of sailors and men on
aged III tn" equally dangerous. hut
u" P"r" dangerous toccupatj,n ~
commerce on the seas, are c,,nstit,1-
i"ilai YOUR contention seeming IN
ne that Seam'n are ignorant ana in
prov Ii"nt ahd that as 10 them +nci
acts Of Congress are constitutional
3Gt that Erakemen ana other toilcrs
on raliroads are 50 highly intelligent
tfat they nocG 10 protection UNDER
~" laws II you Viii turn to tho
chapter If Mr.. Ayers FooK on "Mnr-
ri cNcrStra.n" to which have r.-
i"frod. You viii find instance after :
Instance selected out of tn" man !
hundreds of instances in which the
~ "llhal securing to working people
~ Hberty OF contract under the ;he-
Dry That you set forth has worked |
most cruel injustice to them. The .
!octrne You set forth is exactIy the
[lnd of retrogressive doctrine to
which I object, and to which as
'"td III really pragrt ssive men VITO
ave the Wrl'ar" NJ wn!ln:. men ana
"or.f,so 'ar welfare VI AZ our c:.i-
ems I, boar; .,..!at ~otje,t. caa..Jt