The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1912-02-21

A decision rendered but a few
months ago by the court Of appeals
of my own state, the state of New
York, declared unconstitutional ths
Workmen's compensation act. In their
decision the judges admitted the
wrong and the suffering caused by the
practices against which the law was
aimed. They admitted that other civ
nlzed nations had abolished these
wrongs and practices. But they took
the ground that the Constitution Of
the United States, instead of being an
instrument to secure justice. had been
1ngenfously devised absolutely to pre-
vent Justice. They insisted that the
clause IN the Constitution which for
babe the taking Of property without
4us process Of law forbade the effort
which had been made IN the law to
distribute among all the partners In
an enterprise the effects Of the in
Jurfes to life or limb of a wage-work-
er. IN other words, they insisted that
the Constitution had permanently
CURSED our people with impotence 70
right wrong, and had perpetuated
cruel fniqufty; for cruel iniquity is not
too harsh a term to use in describing
the law which. in the event of such an
accident, buds the whole burden OF
cr4ppHng disaster on the shoulders
least able to bear 1.-THE shoulders of
the crippled man himself. or the dead
mans helpless wife and children. No
anarchist orator, raving against the
Constitution, ever framed an indict-
nrent to it so severe as these worthy
and well-mea ming judges must be held
to have framed If their reasoning be
accepted as true. But, as a matter
of fact, their reasoning was unsound,
B7d was as repugnant to every sound
defender of the Constitution as to
every believer in justice and right
eousness. In effect, their decision
was that we could not remedy these
wrongs unless we amended the Con-
stitution (not the constitution OF tbs
state, but the Constitution OF the ma
tion) by saying that property could be
taken without due process Of law! It
seems Incredible that any one should
be willing to take such a position. 1t
is q position that has been condemned
over and over again by the wisest and
most far-seeing courts. In its essence
It was reversed by the decision OF
state courts In states like Washington
and Iowa. and by the SUPREME court
of the nation in a case but a few
weeks old.
According to one Of the highest
Judges then and now on the Supreme
court of the nation, we had lived for a
hundred years under a Constitution
which permitted a national income
tax, until suddenly by ons vote the
20
decisions for a century, and said that
for century we had been living under
q wrong Interpretation OF the COnstitu-
ton (that is, under a wrong Constitu-
tion), and therefore in effect estab-
1ished a new Constitution which we
are now laboriously trying to amend
80 as to get 1t back to the Constitu-
ton that for a hundred years every
body, including the Supreme court
thought It to be. When l was presi-
dent, We passed a Natic-aI Workmen's
Compensation act. Under it a rail-
way man named Howard, think, was
killed in Tennessee, and his widow
sued for damages. Congress had
done all It could to provide the right,
but the court stepped in and decreed
that congress had failed. Three Of the
judges took the extreme position that
there was no way In which congress
could score the helpless widow and
children against suffering, and that
the mans blood and the blood of all
similar men when spilled should for
ever cry aloud in vain for justice.
This seems a strong statement, but
1t is far less strong than the actual
facts; and I have difficulty In making
the statement with any degree of
modification. The nine Justices of the
Supreme court on this question split
into five fragments. One man, ex-
Justice Moody, in his opinion stated
the case in its broadcast way and de-
justice for Howard, on
grounds that would have meant that
in all similar cases thereafter justice
and not injustice should be done. Yet
the court, By a majority OF one, do
cided as do not for one moment be-
lieve the court would now decide. and
not only Pc pet'lated lamentable In
justice in the case of the man himself.
but set standard Of injustice for all
similar cases. Here again 1 ask you
not to think Of the mere legal formal
ism, but to thiRk of the great i'm
mutable principles OF Justice, the
great immut1 BILE PRINCIPLES of right
and wrong. and to ponder what It
means to men dependent for their live
lihood, and to the women and chill
dren dependent upon these men. when
the courts of the land deny them the
Justice to which they are entitled.
Now, gentlemen. in closing. and IN
thanking you for your courtesy, let me
add one word. Keep clearly in view
what are the fundamental ends OF
--..---n,,,or% honn fhat MT onI~r