The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1910-08-30

/ ut went he Was 5lSACu W NhSSAAhb
multitudes The auditorium in which
he delivered his speech on conserva-
ton, holds $4,000 people, and yet it
was large enough to seat only part
of the throng that sought admission.
In addition to his speech in the au-
ditorium, and his speech before the
Legislature, he addressed the Spanish
War Veterans, who are holding their
encampment here; the Colorado Live
Stock association banquet in the eve
ming, and the Denver Press club at a
chuck wagon luncheon at Overland
Park.
In addition to his remarks censor
ing the Sureme Court, Mr.. Roosevelt
denounced dishonest legislators and
demagogues in his speech before the
Legislature. He attacked untruthful
newspapers and magazines and prais
ed the others The former President
faced a Legislature that was Demo-
cratic in both branches one member
of the House being a woman, and was
presented by the preside4t of the Sen
ate as a typical westerner.'
Mr. Roosevelt said
81 am anxious that the nation and
the state shall each exercise its leg
itimate overs to the fullest degree
When necessary they should work to-
gether, but above all they should not
leave a neutral ground in which Meth
er state nor nation can exercise au-
thority. and which would become
place of refuge for men who wish to
act criminally, and especially for the
very rich men who wish to act
against the interests of the communi-
\ ty as a whole.
Let us illustrate what mean by a
| reference to two concrete cases. The
first is the Knight sugar trust case In
that the Supreme Court of the United
States, under cover of what a man,
whose interest is chiefly in sane con-
| structiye stewardship can only call a
highly technical legal subtlety, hand
ed down decision which rendered it
exceedingly difficult for the nation eff
fectvely to control the use of masses
of corporate capital in interstate bust
ness, as the nation obviously was the
sole power that could exercise this
control for il was quite beyond the
power ofany one state) This was real
lly a decision rendering it exceedingly
difficult for the people to devise any
method of controlling and regulating
the business use of great capital in
Interstate commerce II was a decis-
ion nominally against national rights,
but really against popular rights.
The second case is the so-called
New York bakeshop case. In New
York, as in most large cities. the bak-
ing business is likely TO be carried on
under unhygienic conditions. against
the welfare of the general pub ic. The
New York Legislature passed, and
the governor signed a 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.
Acting on information which &c
them seemed ample and sufficient,
acting in the interest OF the public
and in accordance with the demand
OF the public, the only governmental
authority having affirmative power II
the matter, the governor and the Leg
lslature OF New York took the action
which they deemed necessary, after
what inquiry and study was needed e
satisfy them as TO the conditions anC
as to the remedy.
THE governor and the Legislator,
alone had the affirmative power {
remedy the abuse. But the Suprem,
Court Of the United States possessed
and unfortunately exercised the mega
tive power of not permitting the
abuse TO be remedied. BY five {,
four vote they declared the action ii
the state ofNew York mconstitutiona
because. forsooth, that men must no
be deprived Of their liberty. 10 worl
under unhygienic conditions. The!
were OF course themselves powerles
to make the remotest attempt to pro
vide n remedy for the wrong whlcl
undoubtedly existed, and their refus
| al to permit action by the state di,
not confer any power upon the natioi
to act.
"ln effect this reduced to impotence
the only body which did have powe
| so that In this case the decision, a
though nominally against state rights
was really against popular right:
| against the democratic principle o
| government by the people, under tn
| forms OF law.
| III such decisions as these two IN
| dicated the courts permanent att
| tude. there would be real and gray
cause TO give alarm or such decision
| II consistently followed up, would NJ
set the whole system OF popular GOV
| l1ernment. am. however, convince
| both from the inconsistency Of thes
| decisions with the tenor OF other d,
| cisions and furthermore from tn
| very fact that they are In such flai
| rant and direct contradiction to On
| spirit and needs of the times. tina
| sooner or later they will be explicit
or implicitly reversed.
II mention them merely to illu
| trate the need of having a truly ma
| ional system OF government undo
which the people can deal effectlvol
| with all problems. meeting those this
affect the people as a whole by affirm
alive federal action and those that n
feet merely the people OF one loca
| ity by affirmative state action.
Ill II am most earnest and convince
! believer In exercising the power ,
| the nation whore that power alor
| can be really effective. yet | am n
| less a convinced believer In seem
| that the power of the states be mad
effective where Il affords the bel
means OF affirming popular rights"
| CLOTH RAIDS MADE AT ADAMS
|