The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-07-01
The
SUPREME
COURT
: AND HOW
l. 1T WORKS
Justice-Here and abroad
BY ROBERT MERRILL

i stitution vests in the courts
is called "the judicial power.
This means the power not
merely to decide controversies
but to decide them according
to the principles which judges
in English-speaking countries
have long been accustomed to
apply.
In the United States the same
courts have equal jurisdiction over
the highest officials OF the nation,
the humblest citizens and every
body in between.
If an American citizen brings suit
against government othcer tor an
injury done him, the defendant can
not plead his official position as a
ground for transferring the case to
some government-controlled court.
On the continent of Europe, how
ever, he would be able to do this;
because under the continental sys-
tenn there are two sets of courts:
ordinary courts for private Citizens
and administrative courts Tor those
in the service of the state.
One set of courts for everybody,
with the Supreme court OF the
United States as the court OF final
appeal, is our guarantee that the
man without "pull' will get a
square deal.
Need for Fair Tribunal.
Many persons have asserted that
there is a difference between the
attitude toward citizen In an
American court and in a govern
ment department. In the govern
ment department, they explain, the
citizen is apt to find himself IN the
hands of a subordinate official who
looks at every question from the
government point of view.
If, for instance, it is federal tax
question the official knows that the
government needs the money and
that his own record, or the record OF
his unit, as a good collector is at
stake. The federal estate tax unit
wants to make better record than
the income tax unit, and vice
versa. Under such circumstances
the citizen wants access to court
to find out how an impartial umpire
would look at his case.
Take two actual cases to illustrate
the point. A citizen had several
children, each of whom had property
of his own. The father promised
the children that if they would con-
vey all their property to him he,
in his turn, would by his will leave
to them all the property so con-
veyed and also all of his own prop
erty. They did as requested and he
kept his part of the bargain.
Upon his death, however, the fed
eral government proceeded to treat
for tax purposes the fathers estate
as if it included the property re-
ceived from the children and by him
willed back to them under the
agreement. The children protested
that the property in question was
theirs-not their fathers In the
government department and before
the board of tax appeals they got
nowhere. Finally they appealed to
court and there they won their case.
Court Protects Insurance.
A widow had taken out insurance
on her own life and named her
children as benefciaries. She had
no right to change the beneficiaries
or power to raise money on the
policies without the consent of the
children. After her death the fed
eral government attempted to treat
the insurance money, for tax pur-
poses, as part of the mothers es-
tate.
The children contended that as it
was beyond their mothers power
to get any value out of the policies,
they, the children, were the real
owners and that the mothers estate
had no interest in the policy money
that was subject to tax. They
pressed the matter all along the
line in the government department,
but the tax officials and the board of
tax appeals refused to change their
position. On appeal to court the
position of the children was sus-
tanned.
In thousands of cases every year
the court is appealed to in differ
ences between the American citi-
zen and the administrative rulings
of government officials. That is one
of its functions as the guardian of
the peoples liberties.
@ Western Newspaper Union