Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-02-05

come greatly nlagnifed i'll a case like
the present, when the opinion of the
court affects fundamental. principles of
the government by denying an essen
tial power of taxation long conceded
to exist and often exerted by congress.
If it was necessary that the previous
decisions of this court should be re-
pudiated, the power to amend the con-
sttution existed and should have been
awaited of. The conservation
and orderly development of our instltu-
tions rests on our acceptance of the re-
suits of the past, and their use as lights
to guide Our steps in the future. Teach
the lesson that settled principles may
be overthrown at any time. and con-
fusion and turmoil must ultimately re-
suit. In the discharge of its function
of interpreting the constitution, this
court exercises all august power. 1t
seems to me that the accomplishment
CT its Lofty mission can only be Sc
cured by the stability of its teachings
and the sanctity which surrounds them.
If the permanency of its conclusions is
to depend upon the personal opin ons
of those who, from time to time. may
make up its membership, it will inev-
itably become a theatre of political
strife, and its action will be without
coherance or consistency. There is no
great principle of Or constitutional law
such as the nature and extent of the
commerce power, or the currency pow
er, or other powers of the federal gov
ernment, which has not been ultimately
defined by the adjudications of this
court after long and earnest struggle.
If We are to go back to the original
sources of our political system, or are
to appeal to the writings Of the econo-
mists in order to unsettle all these
great principles, everything is lost and
nothing saved to the people. The rights
of every individual are guaranteed by
safeguards that have been thrown about
them by our adjudications. If these
are to be assailed and overthrow, as
is the settled law of income taxation
by this opinion, as I understand it, the
rights of property. so far as the fed
eral constitution is concerned, are of
little worth. My strong convictions
forbid that I take part in conclusion
which seems to me so full of peril to
the country. l am unwilling to do so,
without reference to question of
what my personal opinion upon the
subject might be if the question were
new one, and was thus unaffected
by the action of the trainers, the his
tory of the government, and the long
line of decisions by this court The
wisdom Of our forefathers in adopting
written constitution has often been
impreached upon the theory that the
Interpretation of written instrument
did not afford as complete protection
to liberty as would be enjoyed under
| constitution made I'D of the traditions
of free people. Writing, it has been
said, does not insure greater stability
than tradition does, while it destroys
tlcxibility. The answer has always been
that by the foresight of the fathers the
construction of Our constitution was
ultimately confded to this body, which
from the nature of its judicial structure
could always be relied upon to act will,
perfect freedom from the influences of
faction and to preserve the benefits OF
consistent interpretation The funda-
mental conception of a judicial body is
that of one hedgcd about by precedents
which are binding on the court with
out regard to the personality of its
members Break down this belief III
judicial continuity, and let it be felt
that on great constitutional questions
this court is to depart from the settled
conclusions Of its predecessors, and to
determine them all according to the
mere opinion of those who temporarily
fill it's bench, and our constitution will,
il, my judgment, be bcreft of value
and become most dangerous instru-
ment to the rights and liberties of the
people,
Seeing no sound reason for ovcrrul'
ing the Anderson case, dissent.