Denver labor bulletin., 1916-09-23

that the word reasonable" be made a
part OF the statute, and then that it
should be left to the court to say what
is a reasonable restraint of trade, what
is a reasonable suppression of competi-
tion, what is reasonable monopoly. l
venture to think that this is to give the
courts power approaching the arbi-
trary, the abuse of which might involve
our whole judicial system in disaster "
But what President Taft, a trained
jurist, utterly condemned, Charles E
Hughes, as justice OF the supreme
court, concurred in, one year later. The
rule of reason became accepted law.
not by legal enactment, but by the
Hughes concurring.
Ousting the Homesteader.
In two land cases that were before
the supreme court while Hughes was Il
member, his position was favorable to
the great corporations and against the
homesteader and the state IS governor
of New York he advocated conservation,
but as supreme court justice he decided
in favor of the railroads in the Weyer-
hauser case, by virtue OF which decision
as adjudieated law the railroads were
given thousands of acres already in pos
session of bona fide settlers. Hughes
sided with White, Vandeyenter, Lurton
and other standpat justices, against JUS
tices Day and Harlan, who disseuted
vigorously.
The case of Montello vs.. Utah involved
&c, 600 acres of land with immensely val
liable salt deposits, granted to the stat
in its enabling act for the purpose of
establishing a university, under clause
specifically including ",ll saline lan,ls.'
The state courts all found against the
salt company, but the supreme court
Jus tice Hughes concurring reversed
their decisions and gave these lands to
the corporation The supreme court
held that as the state would retain 40,-
Uoo acres with a deposit of salt from
four to eight thick" containing "two to
three millions tens of salt worth IN the
aggregate a fabulous sum. such conse-
quences at once challenge its soundnessn
that is, the soundness of the decision
in favor of the state In other words,
it is wrong for state university TO
have lands worth "an almost fabulous
sum-" hut the plain language of the
enabling act may be strained to give
this fortune to private corporation
Annuling Railroad Legislation.
Hughes friendship for the railroads
was manifested III nuluDeI OF IN
stances. As governor he vetoed the two
cent fare and full crew bills. As justice
he concurred in decisions holding that
state and nation can exercise no control
\ lover railroads except in the narrow field
of transportation; that private shippers
cannot recover damages when their bus
mess is ruined by Illegal rebates; that
congress and the federal courts can wipe
out state railroad laws and commissions
that compel rate reductions; that rail
roads in determining reasonable rates"
can include in their valuations lands
| given to them by the people
The most far-reaching of these decis-
ions was that handed down by Justice
| Hughes himself, holding that congress
or the federal courts can wipe out the
| whole body of state railroad laws and
regulations on the basis that such action
is in response to national need. The
state commissions have attempted to
lower freight and passenger rates, and
| while their efforts have been in large
measure annulled by supreme court de-
eisions, the litigation is expensive to the
railroads and keeps the people stirred
| up. The corporations are convinced that
national control would be much more
satisfactory-to them
The above excerpts from the record
show why wage earners and farmers. as
well as all whose interests are linked
with these classes in business-"the
butcher, the banker, the candlestick
maker. the doctor and the dentist
will not vote for Charles +. Hughes.