The San Francisco call., 1910-08-30
Supreme Court Scored


and national government, Roosevelt
said:
I am anxious that the nation and
the state shall each exercise it's
legitimate powers to the fullest de-
work together, but above all they
should not leave a neutral ground
in which neither state nor nation
can exercise authority and which
would become a 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 community as a whole.
I.ct ne illustrate what I mean by
reference to two concrete cases.
The hrst is the Knight sugar trus
case. In that the supreme court of
the United States, under cover of
what a man whose interest is chiefly
in sane. constructive stewardship
can only call highly technical legal
subtlety, handed down a decision
which rendered it exceedingly diff
cult for the nation effectively to
control the use of masses of cor
porate capital in interstate business,
as the nation obviously was the
sole power that could exercise this
control Cfor it was quite beyond the
power of any one state).
This was really a decision render
ing it exceedingly difficult for the
people to devise any method of con-
trolling and regulating the business
use of great capital in interstate
commerce. 1t was a decision NOM
inally against national rights, but
really against popular rights.
The second case is the so called
New York bakeshop case. In New
York city as in most large cities,
the baking business is likely TO be
carried on under unhygienic condi-
tions, conditions which tell against
the welfare of the workers, and
therefore against the welfare 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
whatever in the matter.
Acting on information which to
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
in the matter, the governor and the
legislature of New York took action
which they deemed necessary, after
what inquiry and study was needed
10 satisfy them as TO the conditions
and as to the remedy.
The governor and the legislature
alone had the affirmative power to
remedy the abuse. But the supreme
court of the United States possessed,
and unfortunately exercises, the
negative power of not permitting
the abuse TO be remedied.
By a TO vote they declared the
action of the state of New York
unconstitutional, because forsooth,
that men must not be deprived of
their liberty ito work under un-
hygienic conditions" They were, of
course, themselves powerless to
make the remotest attempt to pro-
vide a remedy for the wrong which
undoubtedly existed, and their re-
fusal TO permit action by the state
did not confer any power upon the
nation to act.
In effect it reduced to impotence
the only body which did have power,
so that in this case the decision, al
though nominally against state
rights, was really against popular
rights, against the democratic prin-
ciple Of government by the people
under the forms Of law.
If such decisions as these two in
dicated the courts permanent atti-
tude there would be real and grave
cause for alarm; for such decisions.
if consistently followed up, would
upset our whole system of popular
government I am, however, con-
WINGED, both from the inconsistency
Of these decisions with the tenor
of other decisions and furthermore
from the very fact that they are in
such fragrant and direct contradic-
ton TO the spirit and needs of the
times, that sooner or later they will
be explicitly of implicitly reversed.
1 mention them merely to illus
trate the need of having a truly ma
tionaI system of government under
which the people can deal effectively
with all problems, meeting those
that affect the people as a whole by
Affirmative federal action, and those
that affect merely the people OF one
locality by affirmative state action.
am a most earnest and convinced
believer in exercising the power of
the nation where that power alone
can be really effective, yet 1 am no
less convinced a -belieTer in seeing
that the power of the state be made
effective where It affords the best
means of affirming popular rights.
Above all, there should be no neu-
tral ground where, owing TO a con-
1icting series of discussions, il shall
appear that neither the state nor
the nation has power, and where in
consequence able and unscrupulous
individuals are left free to riot at
will, without the possibility OF
checking or controlling them in the
interest of public welfare.