Clinch Valley news. [volume] (Jeffersonville, Va.) 18??-2019, 1911-11-03
ChiidrSn cry
FOR FlETCHER'S
Q a 8 Q RIA
Mr.. Taft and MIR. Bryan


William j. Bryan personally to name
an example of restraint of trade
which ought TO be condemned and
would not be condemned under the
supreme courts Interpretation of the
anti trust law. MIR. Brayn answered
him promptly and conclusively as
long ago as the 25th of September in
a press interview from Knoxville, on
the 18th in the Commoner; but with
the supreme Indifference to the amen
tiles of fair discussion, Mr.. Taft pro-
fessed in a later campaign speech, at
Pocatello, Idaho, on the 6tho Octo-
Der, that MIR. Bryan had mado no re-
Spouse to his challenge. 1t will be
surprising if he ventures repetition
of those tactics after the Commoner's
second reply, which has in part been
published Broadcast. Not only does
Mr.. Bryan again respond courteously
and candidly to Mr.. Taft's challenge,
but he makes counter challenge
which Mr.. Taft may find it safer to
ignore than to experiment with.
In his first answer to Mr.. Taft's
challenge, Mr.. Bryan replied that
any and all trusts, contracts or re-
stra ints of trade, according to the
whim and pleasure of the trust SYM
patlizcr, occupying at lifetime a seat
on the federal bench" would "be
absolved under the supreme court de-
cision ;'and he followed this gene raj
iaztion with citations which make it
prudent even if unfair, for Mr.. TAT.
to profess to have had no reply at all.
Mr.. Bryan also asked questions-im-
pudent no doubt in Mr.. Taft's esti-
nation, but certainly not Impairment
Whydid Chief Justice White reiter-
ate and emphacize in the recent trust
case his dissenting opinion in case
that went against him years ago?
Why did President Taft appoint sup
RENE court Justices who could be de-
pended upon To reverse that earlier
view of the court and turn Justice
Whites dissenting opinion of that
time into Chief Justice Whites con-
Justice White write iii the later case
an opinion so exhaustive OH point
not necessary for deciding the parti-
cular issues before the court? Why
did Justice Harlan think it necessary
to write strong protest against the
opinion of the chief Justice, a Though
he joined in the decision? These are
among the questions Mr.. Bryan asked
in his first reply to Mr.. Taft's chal-
lenge. His citations included one from
Mr.T himself which must have
made that candidate for denomination
squirm Il bit. 1t is quoted from his
message to congfress of January Z,
1910, and exhibits Mr.. Taft us in
terms opposing the injection by CON
gress of the word reasonable" into
the antitrust law. Mr.. Taft said
that this would put into the hands
of the courts power impossible to
exercise on any consistent principle
which will insure the uniformity of
decision essential to just judgment.
Yet MIR. Taft now approves the inject
ion by the supreme court into that
law of that very word and with idcn.
tlcally that effect.
Bryan's second answer, Taft having
ignored his iirsa, cuts deeper still. 1t /
appears in the Commoner of October
9Th. in response to a repetition by Mr..
Taft of his original challenge, which
he coupled with some of his choicest
denunciations of criticisms of the
supreme court, evidently abiding to
Bryan, as "glib.' Mr.. Bryan here
reminds Mr.. Taft that the latter
knows that Mr.. Bryan has only re-
iterated the criticisms contained in
the dissenting opinion TO Justice Har-
Ian and in the report of the senate
judiciary committee filed by Senator
Nelson three years ago. wherein
Justice Harlan and Senator Nelson
pointed out that the amendment now
written into the antitrust law practi-
cally nullifies the criminal clause.
Upon the heels of this reminder, Mr..
Bryan asks: "Does the president be-
lieve criminal conviction possible"
under the statute as the supreme
court now interprets it? eff so, why
does he hesitate to prosecute the Off
Gals of the Standard Oil and Tobacco
These are questions
which Mr.. Taft must answer if he |
wishes his altered views of the anti
trust law to be regarded as a genuine
conversion. But thereupon comes a
crucial question fom Mr.. Bryan, pro-
voked by Mr.. Taft's renewed chal-
lenge of challenge already amply
met, a question which it were doubt
ess well for MIR. Taft to ignore
With much dignity to be sure, but
With adamantine sutbpbornness.
Speaking of challenges, says MIR.
Bryan" here's one for the President;"
and thereupon Mr.. Taft's merciless