control, for the moment, of his mind; and, without turning his practical mind to even a cursory review of the inconveniencing condition, he lets go his artillery of protest. Later on, when his practical mind is forced to analyze the situation, he sees the error of his snap judgment; he sees that selfishness was the incentive to protesting voice. Then comes the worker, the one who is immediately affected. He presents his case from his point of view, giving facts and figures--both oral and by documentwhich disprove and contradict in varying degrees the statements made by those who have gone before him; he shows the amount of production, the cost of producing given units of the industry, the profits, and the share that comes to him; he shows his cost of living, comparing it with the net profits of the industry, and proves he is only getting a bare existence from it, and making no provision for the

later days when his earning capacity is on the decline and the rainy days become more frequent. Before every worker's eye through life is the economic scrap heap and he endeavors to build his pathway around the heap so that he will not be dumped unceremoniously upon it toward the end of a hard fought life.

The funeral day for the burial of the hail-fellow-well-met politician and representative, who seek the legislative office and is elected by compromise or popular clamor, is not far distant, and in his stead will come the practical man whose broad conception of statesmanship warrants him the support of his constituents. It takes statesmanship and honesty of purpose to analyze a condition and take the wheat and let the wind blow the chaff away. When this day is ushered in, the pinhead legislator will be retired to private life and given time to weigh his grey matter and figure up how many

Named Shoes are frequently made in Non-Union Factories

Do Not Buy Any Shoe

No matter what its name, unless it bears a plain and readable im

[blocks in formation]

pennyweights of brains it takes to make statesmen.

It is then, and only then, that popular government will be the success that our forefathers hoped for when they instituted it on American soil.

The people, the common people in all countries, are as a rule peace-loving and support proper laws when the important element, justice, is the basis upon which the law rests. Again, however, there are among the people of all countries those who are not content to let well enough alone; they think (as an old Irish friend of mine puts it) that they should be captains and from an exalted position should dictate to the privates in the ranks how they must conduct business or otherwise deport themselves.

Some of our law makers in Washington and elsewhere in their zealousness seem to forget a few of the fundamentals that go to make up properly applicable law. Applicable law is a statute that those under its government subscribe to and support it on the ground of its properly applying to the case to which it is intended to apply and based upon proper fundamentals, having in mind a justness against which nobody will complain.

This is the position taken by some of our legislators, and some of our judges, and again, by some people of a fanatical turn of mind who assume the role of conservator of the people, and is one that gives concern. They work themselves up to such a point that they become obsessed with the idea that they, and only they, can be right; the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution must be curbed. These same people assume that popular government is not what the people want; they feel that to them has been entrusted the Deity-given form of government, and inspired by these selfappointed and created obsessions, they begin a crusade, carrying with it an

Laws passed which do not have for their basis the fundamentals of civil government, may for a time be submitted to, but they pall in time, and finally result in open revolt with the result that some one or more loses his or their heads. History has recorded many instances of that end being reached. Kings and Judges have felt the heavy hand of a people revolting against the tyranny of inapplicable law.



[graphic][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]

element of compulsion, which the majority of the people treat as a joke for the time being, drifting in a subconscious way in the belief that the legislators, either State or National, would gibbet it in short order. They wake up later to find that their silence has been taken as giving consent and the piece of legislation is up for hearing in all seriousness. The fanatics elated to see their ideas meeting with such favor are carried to greater flights of imagination and selfsatisfaction.

For some years now we have been treated to these doses of abridgement and have offered no particular protest, and it is only now that the slack in the rope of liberty has been about taken up and the sensation of a difficulty to 'breathe freely that we are becoming conscious of the tightening of the rope, and we have begun to ponder on a way to either break the fanatical hold on the other end of the rope, or wonder if the political broad-sword is sharp enough to cut the rope. One or the other method must be adopted if we are not to be subjected to a series of fanatical rule under the old Roman and Grecian style when people were subjects of the sovereign and not a free people with a right and a say to say by what laws we shall be governed.

The recent election, viewed from a

non-political standpoint, and its result, was a mild protest, showing that the people are not wholly unconscious of what is going on. Under the constitutional provision, Congress was made the lawmaking body. If we elect in our beclouded moments fanatics to represent us, we must pay the penalty for our foolish short-sightedness when bad legislation is imposed; but we have a right of repeal.

We have been treated for a number of years to a species of law disqualifications from the third department of our government (the judiciary). Ever since Justice Marshall's time, when the assumption of power was taken, the courts have without any constitutional warrant assumed the position of declaring an act of Congress void and without effect.

The people who elect their representatives to the law-making bodies have not in any convincing sense voiced a protest to this kind of assumption of power, instructing their representatives to legislate against such dictatory judicial usurpation allowing in their sub-conscious way the continuance of this violation of constitutional authorization.

After the passage of the Adamson law, the railroads who opposed it, wished to have the exercise of this unauthorized power brought against the Adamson law, and put the Government on the defen




Scotten Dillon Company

sive, and brought the case up before a court upon which sat a single judge. No trial of any length or seeming purpose other than that of hurrying the case so that it could be filed within a certain time on appeal before the United States Supreme Court. This single judge in a perfunctory manner declared this legislation unconstitutional, thus declaring void the will of the whole people of the United States as vested in two Houses of Congress and the Chief Executive who sits as the head of the Government by the expressed will of the people. Does it not seem to be a curious anomalism that such a thing could occur when our Constitution does in no sense of the word authorize it. It certainly seems to be a plain case of the assumption of power not warranted by any law.

That we are not all dead in our stream, drifting, is proven by the introduction of a resolution by Senator Owen, the effect of which, and the reception of which, will be interesting to watch. If the Senator is not chloroformed and his resolution sent to Limbo, some interesting discussion will occur when the resolution gets on the floor.


The resolution is as follows. readers will do well to watch the debate upon it:

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 13.-United States Senator Owen, of Oklahoma, introduced a joint resolution in the Senate which provides that any Federal judge who rules an act of Congress unconstitutional is guilty of judicial usurpation and of violating the constitutional requirement of "good behavior," upon which his tenure of office rests.

"Such decision, the resolution con-tinues, will be sufficient to show that the Federal judge has 'vacated' his office, and thereafter no officer of the United States shall recognize such judge as an officer of the United States or entitled to any of the emoluments or dignities of such office.

""The President of the United States

is hereby authorized to nominate a successor to fill the position vacated by such judicial officer.'

"In his preamble to this resolution, the author says the Constitution gives no authority to any judicial officer to declare unconstitutional an act passed by Congress and signed by the President.

"In the constitutional convention in which the Constitution was framed, a motion was made three times to give the Supreme Court, in some mild form, the right to express an opinion upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress, and was three times overwhelmingly rejected.

"Such assumption of power by the Federal courts,' continues Senator Owen, 'interferes with the reasonable exercise of the sovereignty of the people of the United States and diverts it from the hands of the representatives of the people in Congress assembled to a tribunal appointed for life and subject to no review and to no control by the people of the United States, and is, therefore, against wise public policy.'"

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »