Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1922-09-08
FRIDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 8, 1922.
LAFoL1ErTE AND BEvER1DGE.

There has been a good deal of comment on the
results of the various state primary elections which
have been held for the nomination of candidates for
the United States senat. or the house, and because
in several cases men were nominated who had been
critical of the administration, and in some cases men
have been defeated who were understood to be
Representative" of the administration, the conclu-
sion has been drawn that there is in progress a great
movement away from all that the present admins
tration stands for. That alleged movement is va
riously termed radical, socialistic and progressive,
according to the point of view.
That it is easy to make a mistake in drawing
such conclusions is evidenced by the results of the
Republican senatorial nomination contest in North
Dakota. The nomination Of Frazier was attributed
to this cause, and it was believed by not a few that
the people of North Dakota we're participating in
this movement. by whatever name it may be known.
The fact, which is now mitch better, understood, is
that the nomination of Frazier was an accident
growing out of peculiar conditions within the state,
and that it did not indicate anything as to the atti-
tude of the people of the state on either state; or
national issues.
The defeat of Senator New in Indiana by for
mer Senator Beveridge was described as a part of
this political revolution, and the practical certainty
which has existed that Senator LaFollette would be
same cause.
That a reaction from the Republican landslide
of two years ago was due this year it required no
very acute intelligence to discern. The pendulum
is always oscillating, and the force which swings it
far in one direction usually swings it back with cor
responding force. That does not mean revolution.
1t merely means the customary reaction from any
extreme in any direction.
That this influence is felt. in Indiana, in North
Dakota, in Wisconsin, in every state, is something
which everyone should understand. But that it i'm
plies the existence of a tendency to organize nation
ally on new and extreme lines does not follow, and
is not true. For instance, upon what common plat
form could LaFollette and Beverage stand?
LaFollette is a forceful, aggressive, ambitious
man, skilled in organizing. and an adept in capital
izing discomfort. One of his pet projects is to de-
prive the supreme court of the authority to declare
unconstitutional acts of congress. The adoption of
that plan would nullify the constitution itself, for
while the constitution specifically limits the powers
of congress. if congress chose to exceed those limits
and there existed no authority to say when they
were exceeded, the limits might as we'll not have
been fixed. Let that authority be withdrawn from
the supreme court and congress could successfully
invade the rights of any state or Of any individual,
and there could be no appeal.
Nh. Beverage has made a speciality of c%onstitu-
tional law. He has written what many believe to
be the best biography of Chief Justice John Mar
shall. 1t may not be correct to say that John Mar
shall put teeth in the constitution. But he did cs-
tablish beyond all question that the constitution ios
teeth. He pointed out where they are. what Trey
are for, and how they are to be used. He put into
concrete form the principle that under Our form of
government the supreme court can and must deter
mine the constitutionality Of all acts of congress,
and in doing SO he made the constitution a working
instrument.
Beverage accepts absolutely the doctrine which
Marshall enunciated. LaFollette rejects it. Upon
our acceptance or rejection of that doctrine depends
the form Of our government and the character of our
institutions. On that vital subject these two men
are Numerically opposed. By what mental gym
nastcs can we reach the conclusion that the nomira-
ton of two such opposites represent the same pop
u1ar movement?