Arizona republican., 1912-08-23
The Commerce Court


 determined and successful fight for the preservation of the com merce court has probably made d strategic mistake of which he was fully aware at the beginning. Doubtless it will cost him many votes, a loss which he anticipated when he set out But he has consistently fol- lowed what he believed to be the right course whether eXpedient or not. This is one of the many instances which have given the president reputation for lack of tact, whereas, he has only been disregardful of con sequences in the discharge of his duty.
 His advocacy of the commerce court before it's institution was not popular. People look with suspicion upon the creation of new courts. They think there is a lurking, sinister purpose Arizonians of d quarter of a century ago remember the vigorous fight made by the citizens of this territory and New Mexico against the creation of the court of private land claims. Mark Smith. then a delegate in con- gress. endeared himself to the people of this valley by his fierce but un- successful onslaught upon the pro posal to establish that court which he denounced as the first step in scheme to validate the land grants. and especially the infamous Peralta- Reavis grant embracing all of the Salt River valley and all that was worth having of the mineral and agri- cultural sections of central and south ern Arizona.
 The leading citizens of this valley, regardless of party, fought the pro posal and many who now hold Mr. Smith in the highest esteem do not know why they do so, but it is be- cause he so vigorously opposed a scheme which finally resulted in their salvation.
 The court of private land claims Justified the wisdom of its creation. Most of the land grants were found by it to be invalid and but for the special machinery of that court 1t IS doubtful whether the gigantic and most skilfully constructed fraud of the nineteenth century would have been laid bare. That was done by
 of tho pIished, brilliant, scholarly and traV- eled MaIlet- Provost would probably not have been solicited by the regular federal courts and in all probability Reavis' scheme which had deceived such astute men as Robert G. lnger- soil and c. P Huntington would have been endorsed finally by the highest court in the land.
 At the time of the creation of the commerce court there were two classes of obiectors. Some believed that it was intended to obstruct or nullify inc operations of the interstate com merce commission. Others, like Sen ator Rorah believed that it was need less and he lately stated in senate debate that that was still his only ob- lection: he had not been influenced in the slightest by any decisions made by the court.
 Two decisions of the court, later reversed by the supreme court on the ground that the commerce court had exceeded it's powers were unfortunate in that they had been rendered against the findings of the commission III which the decision of the commission had been against the railroads. These decisions were widely advertised by the anti administration papers as proof that the court had been organ ized against the interests of the peo- pie.
 Yet. in two other cases decisions by the commerce court suspendlng rul- ings bv the commission favorable to inc railroads were reversed by the supreme court on the same grounos that the lower court had exceeded it's powers. These instances were not magnified and not mentioned even oy the anti-administration papers.
 But in all these cases the pubic was after all served by the commerce court in that the matters in dispute were brought to a final decision much earlier than they otherwise could have been The average time between tii0 rulings of the commission and the supreme court decisions was SIX