The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-01-06
onIrIoIzING THE COURTS.

ar. Bryan as much opposition In 1885
from conservatives OF all parties as
even his famous free silver Issue. and
yet the language which SO distressed
and shocked the conservatives of that
day seems singularly tnme and inno-
cent In 1912.
Said the Democratic platform in dis
cussinG the income tax decision: I'VE
declare !; is the duty OF Congress to
use all the constitutional power
which remains after that decision, or
which may come from its reversal by
the court, as it may hereafter DO con-
stituted, so that the burden OF taxa.
ton may be equally and ilnpartially
laid, to the end that wealth may hear
It's due proportion OF the expenses OF
the government" This declaration
was received by many Democrats ana
Republicans as an open bid for chang
else of the appointing power of the
President
sixteen years ago the papers rang
with the atrocity OF the proposal
which openly aimed at controlling the
legislation by appointing Judges of
known views: Vet the Corporation
Commission of conservative Virginia
calmly writes to President Taft In op-
position TO tho appointment OF Judge
Hook to the Supreme Court because
decision OF Judge Hooks. In the Ian
euase OF the Corporation Commission
may be fairly characterized as an
abuse of his judicial discretion" for
which decision tho Corporation Com
mission condemns Judge Hooks" ac-
ton as unsecmly.
1t is hard to draw a line between
the radical and revolutionary dcclura-
ton OF the Democratic platform in
1895 and the claim, Judicial and conser-
vative conclusions OF the state Cor
porat!on Commission OF Virginia in
1912, If criticism OF the Judge and OBJ
jections to a line OF decision is the
Anal test between the radical anu the
conscrva tive.
The Democratic platform Of 1896 al
so took an advanced position on the
question OF the granting tnjunctions
by the Federal Judges. The exact Ian
suage OF the platform was: we espec.
Tally object TO government by injunc-
ton as a new and highly dangerous
form OF oppression by which Federal
judges. in contempt of the laws OF the
States and the rights Of the citizens,
become at once iegislator Judges and
executioncrs." This expressed desire
to limit tho powers of the Federal
courts was another and serious
stumbling block in tho way OF Demo
cratic success.
But times have an odd way OF
changing. and We do not recall more
conspicuous example OF this fact than
in the following sentence from the
Corporation Commissions letter TO
President TafS !,
There is@iinuch unrest. whether nus.
nhabie or not III tho public mind,
growing out of the frequency and ia
ctl!ty with which injunctions have
Been granted by United states Judges
"f inferior courts restraining the en-.
forccment OF state laws, and the Su-
preme Court of the United States hn.,
Itself apparently rebuked the inferior
functions on insufficient grounds.
1t is not for the legal argument. or
for the stated facts, that The Corpora
ton Commissions letter is so Ium-
mating. but rather because il, shows
The growth of the tendency 10 popular
control over the courts.
In 1912 the three members Of III.
Virginia state Corporate COMMITS
sion, without the least apparent mis-
giving, take uron Themselves 10 ex-
press TO President Taft the same senti-
ments which brouGh, nbou, the over
throw OF the Democratic party in 1Sqa.
though IT polled 100000 votes
we Go not sucEest or maintain tina,
the members OF the Corporation com
mission los, their right to indiyidual
thought or expression by becoming
judicial officers OF Virginia Eut wby
Nshould court as d body attempt 10
control the membership Of The supreme
Court? II mere opinion even when il
IS the opinion OF judges, is all ina, is
necessary TO justify the action OF the
Corporation Commission is not ,h.,
body setting an example that come,
perilously near in principle 10 INC re,
call of judges by popular vote?