The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-09
THE SUPREME COURT FIASCO

Shakespeare-tha intellectual ocean into which all rivers f1ow'-smakes one of his characters say, as a preamble to attaining an idenlistic state of govern ment-'-hrst, let's kill all the lawyers ''
 This, of course, is the howery and poetical way. of stating that the legal profession and the Judiciary should be stripped of their arrogant prerogatives prer ogatIves inirnical to the welfare and progress of the race.
 Spencer. in his opening chapter of clusively that where there exists the universal recognition of the existence of much smoke there must necessarily be, some fire.
 present high-minded attempt. on the part of the Supreme Court to sit in solemn judgment on the question as to whether or not the will of the people of the State of Oregon is to be res pected in the matter of their right to c rest Legislation The smoke of d Demos watch-fires should be visible to the most myopic, but the Judiciary do not, as yet, comprehend that there is any fire. They are destined shortly to a rude awakening.
 These 'gentry-at thes instigation of the owners of America-are to deter mine just how sharp the teeth of the buzz saw are; and in the process, it is safe to say, some one Ts liable to lose a more or less valuable portion of his anatomy
 The question as to whether:
 Edward D. White, chief justice, of
 JoSeph McKenna. of California.
 Oliver w Holmes, of Massachusetts
 William R. Day, of Ohio,
 Wm H. Moody, of Massachusetts,
 Harmon H. burton. of Kentucky,
 Ghas. E; Hughes, of New York.
 Joseph R. Lamar, of Georgia,
 wills Van I00VanfeT- 1f Wyoming are to dictate to the people of the sovereign state of Oregon, or whether the people are to decide how they will or will not be governed. would be laughabIe, were it not so huTniliating-
 If we are to maintain indefinitely a government by judgeS-even in whose appointment the people have no voice 1t is no longer necessary for us to trouble curse yes to become familiar with, or vote on matters of interest to the Democracy.
 Dem Orcacyi" Timon of Athens boasted just such a Democracy. So did King John and the English Lords, prior to the Magma Charter.
 The decision of the Supreme Court pro or cor-it is safe to hazard a guess that it Eill be mostly ccr--affects di- rect Legislation laws in all the states wherein they have been adopted
 How like you this posi- Fon, men and women of this hand of the more or less free, and partially brave? This peti- tioning of nine men for the privilege of making the laws under which we live. Yet such is the situation.
 Dr. P. $. Grant, of the Church Of the Ascension, New York City, in a recent article in the North American Review, which Vfbrates with honest sincerity and manly conviction. concludes thus:
 The working people to-day in Amer ica are not behind the laws; they do not regard them as their laws. but as the laws of hostile interests IL follows naturally that they distrust hG1 a C-T1l a courts. That is the meaning of thei- demand for the initiative, referen dunn and the recall (even of jHdges). Their comp sFnts are clear and specific. The laws and the courts are against them, but are for their employers.
 The working man contends that long after the destruction of monarchial Sorms of government, class contro' still goes on even in democracy; tha- far from the majority governing fo- an,' MT. Taft's artleSs assumption, in -eality a capitalist minority. governs for Itself alone. This skeptical posi-