The copper era., 1911-09-22
Comments on Speech of Eugene S. Ives

experience he can array his argu-
 ments in logical order for or against l proposition. He can detend or
 prosecute d cause with equal ability
 By his strong personality and his
 brilliant word pictures he can for the
 time being clotbe a weak case in it's
 most plausible light.
 In his comments upon the judicial
 department of our government and
 his ridicule, yelled in sarcastic ut
 terances and inuendos, directed at
 the Supreme Court of the United
 States, illustrated by the citsk ion
 of the recent decisions in the Stand
 ard Oil and Tobacco Trust cases, the
 speaker intended to create the inn
 pression in the minds of his hearers
 that the federal judges, especially,
 aided and abetted by the supreme
 court of the United States, were
 engaged in the common practice of overriding the laws of the country. and were aligned with special privi- .lege as against the masses. That was the idea the speaker intended to convey. MT. Ives does not believe the supreme court of the United States decided the case of the United States vs. The Standard Oil and Tobacco Trusts according to the law and the evidence. While MT. Ives is an honest and learned attorney we still hold to the opinion that the eight members Of the Supreme court, who concurred in those opinions, are equally as honest and equally as learned as the gentle man from Tucson.
 EVERY ALLEGAT OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE GOVERN MENT AGAINST THE TOBACCO TRUST AND STANDARD OIL TRUST WAS SUSTAINED BY THE SUPREME COURT.
 The decision was a victory for the government and the people. The complaint was drawn under an Act of Congress passed by the representa- tives of the people. Still, in the opinion of MT. Ives, the eight learned members of the Supreme court should now be going through ''recall" election. Why? Because in the opin- ion of MT. Ives eight members of the supreme court usurped the powers of congress. It is not "reasona ble" to believe that eight members of the Supreme Court of the United States are wrong and that MT. Ives is right. In contrast to the speech of the gentleman from Tucson. wherein he attempted to create a feeling of dIstrust and suspicion, directed to- ward the judicial department of our government, we quote the following words of the President of the United States, delivered in a speech al De- troit, Michigan. just twenty-four hours previous to the appearance of MT. Ives in Clifton.
 President Taft said:
 ''During the last year we have had two great decisions Ly the supreme court of the United States. They are epoch making, and the public has not vet come to realize the effect that these decisions are certain to have.
 "Persons who do not understand the law have great deal to say which is intended to lead the public to the belief that in some way or an- other the supreme court has ema scul- l ated the statute and prevented its operations against objectionable ! trusts and Conspiracies. Nothing is further from the truth.
 When the statute was passed in | 1890 the expressions used in it to de- i fine its object and what it was pro- l posed therein to denounCe as unlaw- ful were not new but they were sui | ficiently broad and indefinite to re- | quire judicial construction to settle | their meaning. Congress was dealing | with subject matter in respect to ] which it may be assumed that the ] legislators themselves were not clear | as to the exact limitations of the i meaning of the words in the statute they were passing. They knew there was evil which they hoped to re- strain by the enactment ot this law, and they relied upon the courts in their construction of the law to hedge I bout it's operation such restriction IS would prevent the statute from being so wide in its application as TO involve absurdity and the impractic- able.
 ''I shall not attempt to give it a close, lawyer-like interpretation think it is not departing from the 1eciara tiou of the court to say that hey find any contract in restraint Of trade, made for the purpose of ex- ;luding competition, controlling prices or of maintaing a monopoly, in part or in whole, is contrary to the statute and is subject to injunction ma indictment under this statute in he federal courts where it affects in- trade.
 "Now, I would like to ask MT. Bryan 1r any of the other publicists and urists who have been denouncing his opinion as the surrender of the lights or the people and a usurpa tiou )f judicial power to tell the pubic what particular contract or restraint