The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-10-28
Roosevelt VS.. Constitution

III eSNNSONV MI - N~1AAO&Ak&kS10k1st
an editorial entitled .'rhe Trusts the People and
the Square Deal. Mr.. Roosevelt says:
This statement hy the why. applies also to
e q y r.. q ny
branch II II commended that In these recent
decisions the Supreme court legisated. SO II
failed TO do It's duty BY legislating. For the
supreme court to nullify an act OF the Legislatures
as uneonstituto nal except on the clearest
grounds y asarpation; to interpret such an act
In an obviously wrong sense Is usurpation; but
where the leg slptive body pcrsistently leaves
open field which It is absolutely Imperative,
from the public standpoint. to MI. then no pos
sihie blame attaChss TO the ofaciaf OF officials
who step In because they have to, and who then
do the needed work in the interests OF the peo-
pie. The blame in such cases lies with the
body which has been dereict, and not with the
body which reluctantly makes good the dcrelic-
ton.
Here is a bald. bold declaration that he be-
heves In usurpation by one branch OF the gov
eminent OF the rights OF another branch. That
Is his own Languages astounding the words
may sound. statement previously made APP
plies. he says. also to the question of 'usurpa-
ton by any branch of government OF
the rights OF another branch" And then he
uses as illustration the decisions OF the Supreme
court N the Standard OH and Tobacco cases
Taking up the charge that the Supreme court
'legislated,' he admits the truth of the charge.
SO IL did, ne declares. and then he adds. and
gress had signaily failed to do It's duty by Leg
islating."
He approves. Of the courts acton in making
itself the judge and in proceeding to leg slate
because in it's Judgment. congress had failed
to do its duty by legslating.
To make the statement stronger. he proceeds
TO say that 1t is usurpation for the Supreme
court TO nullify. except on the ciearest grounds
an act Of the legislature; that II Is usurpat on,
ALSO to interpret such act In an obviously
wrong sense--an admission that the antitrust
mentioned. was Interpreted In an obviously
wrong sense; and vet he justi fees the action Of
/ body persIstentiy left open a field which II IS
absolutely imperative. from the public stand
point, to I'LL"
| who is to decide whether the legislative body
was wrong In refusing to amend the ant thrust
law The people who elect the legislators? No.
I the Supreme court, composed OF Judges appoint
! ed by the president. and appointed at whose
request? Will Mr. Taft and Mr.. Roosevelt tell
us!
! Ard then Mr.. Roosevelt proceeds with his
usual positveness and with comprehensive
phraseology to tell the public that mo possible
blame attaches to the official officials who
step in because they have to-" but that the
/ blame lies with the body which has been dere-
/ lict."
The utterances Of the public men Of our coun-
try will be scanned in vain for any declaration
that approaches the above statement OF Mr..
Roosevelt IN contempt for the limitations OF the
constitution
OF what use is a constitution II its provisions
can be ignored? According to Mr. Roosevelt.s
philosophy. any branch of the government is at
liberty to ignore the constitution and usurp the
rights Of any other branch IT, in Its Judgment
public Interests require 1t.
II q man Is to act according to his view of
pubic interests. and not according to the con-
stitution. why have constitution at all? Why
not condensc the constitution into a few words
and say that each official, when elected ap-
pointed, shall do whatever he thinks 10 best for
the country? This would avoid any conflict as
to Jurisdiction. The course outlined by Mr..
ypAoe fnal n~1ur
\ eoagusiea, and better illustration could be
found than the subject which he has selected as
an excuse for thus expressing himself.
/ Some fourteen years ago, the Supreme court
refused to give to the antitrust law the inter-
probation which the trusts demanded. The
trusts--not the peope-asked that the word
unreasonable be inserted in the law, that
instead of prohibiting all restraint OF trade, 1t
would only prohibit unreasonable" restraint of
trade 1t is not necessary at this time to dwell
upon the absurdtty or the request It would be
lust reasonable for an association Of burglars
TO ask that the law against burglary be inter-
preted to prohibit not all housebreaking, but
4 only unreasonable house breaking
i When the court, by q majority OF one declared
that the law meant what 1t said and that all
conspiractes In restraint OF trade were unlawful
the trusts proceeded to lay their plans for an
amendment but after persistent struggle they
! failed TO secure favorable action from congress
!, Even the senate, controlled 1t has been until
recently by the predatory interests dared not
offend public opinion by thus multiplying the
/ criminal clause OF the ANTITRUST law
i In recent adverse report, the judiciary COM
mittee OF the senate pointed out the effect OF
Isuch an amendment the trusts demanded, but
while the people were blocking this effort or the
trusts to amend the antitrust law by legislation
Mr.. Roosevelt and Mr.. Taft appointing
United States supreme judges, and 1t so hap
! pened that when the question came up again q
year ago last spring 1t was found that every
4 new Judge appointed since the former decision,
by strange coincidence ~. took the trust
side Of the proposition The Supreme court re.
versed it's former decision and did exactly what
the trusts attorneys asked ana what congress
1 had refused to do.
1 Whereupon shout of rejoicing went up from
the trust magnates OF the country: they had won
their fight at last In spite Of the people, ana
| Immediately President Taft comes ont In praise
OF the decision and declares that the law Is now
Il sat 'sfactory, y sg4x t.
H In other words, after the Supreme court has
amended the law TO suit the trusts, the people