Constitutional Evolution

The supreme court of the United States is coustitution making these days. On the 2Oth of May it declared the income tax unconstitutional by a mere ínajority The decisión was characterized by a member of the court as "revolutionary" aud a blowat the very "foundation of national anthority. " The taxing power lies at the foundation of all government, and in fact determines its character. A decisión of the conrt of last resort, therefore, exempting the wealtta of the country from the reach of the taxing perogative of the national governenmt, canuot be regarded otherwise than as a "disastrous blow" to the ' ' constitutional power of congress. ' ' It is not surprising that a decisión, ovcrturning well established principies of taxation and so repugnant to the American idea of responsibility for the support of governmeut proportioned to the beneflts received, should be so strongly characterized by the dissenting justices. The decisión niarks an epoch in constitutional evolution and it is evolntion backward, away from the interests of the conirnon people. It relieves those ■who require the greatest amount of govenimental protection from being taxed in proportion to the benefits received. It is directly opposed, therefore, to a fundamental principie of our government - the equality of all men before the law, not only as to rights but as to obligations as well. f Judge Brown's words, "I hope it may not prove the flrst step toward the subniergence of the liberties of the people in a sordid despotisni of wealth' ' are not tpessiniist ie, therefore, bnt based upon the well grounded fear of a man capable of seeing with clear visión the inevitable tendenoy of suoh a decisión. On IMay 27 carne the unanimous docision of the court in the case of En gene V. Debs, the strike leader, sustainmg the decisión of the lower conrt and denying to Debs and his associates the Wïit of habeas oorpus prayed for. These men will now be obliged to serve their 6entences in jail. They were sentenced for con tempt of court, because, they defied the iiijunction of Judge Woods prohibiting interference with interstate comxnerce and the running of the United States mails during the strike last summer. This decisión we believe to be as eternally right as the other is eternally wrong. It esablishes once for all a principie, that one can scarcely understand how any person could ever question, the right and the obligation of the government to use all means at its command, if need be, in executing without let or hinderance those functions for the doing of which it was called into being and upon which its continued existence depends. In expressing this fact which had previously been vigor - onsly upheld by the executive branch and endorsed by the almost unanimous vote of both houses of congress, the conrt uses the following language : "The en tire strength of the nation may be used to enforce in any part of the land the full and free exercise of all national powers and the security of all rights intrusted by the constitution to its care. The strong arm. of the national government may be put forth to brnsh away all obstructions to the freedom of interstate commmerce or the transportation of the mails. If the emergency arises the army of the nation and all its militia are at the eerrice of the nation to coinpel obedience to its laws. ' ' The decisión fixes the status of railroad strikes where interstate commerceand the carrying of the mails are involved. It leaves organized labor in the possession of all its lawful rights also. While it upholds the right of men to quit work, it also sustains the right of other men to take the places of the strikers and to work if they so desire. In other words, it confines the strike ■within peaceful bounds. But it says in no mistakable language that a prison cell awaits those who resort to force and violence. The decisión reeognizes that the objects and aims of organizd labor are right and proper, but that they must be secured by lawful means, and by the acts of civilization rather than through intimidation, the deruction of property and brute force. The unfortnnate thing about these fcvro decisions is that the first one whioh beeame the law of the land by a majority of one and by that one reversing his position inside of a inonth, is notoriously in the interest of the moneyed classes, while the other, although really in the interest of organized labor, niay not appear so on the siirfaee, and will be heraHed as a blow against labor and in favor of corporations. There are those of course, who thiuk the aotiou of the president last suinmer was violent and an invasión of the rights of the states, hut the great mass of our citizeus think otherwise and vith the endoïsemont it has received at the hands of congress and the stipreme conrt it will remain nuqnestioned. There can be no question, therefore, but what a long step in constitutional evolution in the direction of complete nationality within the limits of delegated powers has been taken. The reason given by the mob at Dansville, Illinois, when appealed to iiot to disgrace the state by adding the crime of lyuehing to the other iufamous acts committed by Boyoe and Halls, was óne that should have a deep and abiding iufluence on executive officers vesred with the pardoning power, and the people at large as well. They declared that should the villains, Boyoe and Halls, be convicted and seut to the penetentiary, they would not be allowed to serve their time, but wonld be pardoned by Gov. Altgeld. There is too rnuch cause to suppose that this assertion would have proved true. The same would have been equally true of various other executives, no doubt. Our people are possessed of altogether too nmch sympathy for those who are incarcerated for the ir crimes against society. The people readily forget the innocent ctim of the vicious instincts of the criminal. Time is a clever healer of wounds, and as the victin is placed beyond the possibility of keeping his wrongs in the public mind, they are soon forgotten, and give place to sympathy for the unregenerate wretcb whose case is never allowed by the soft hearted and feeble minded,topassoutof the people' s thoughts. Appeal af ter appeal is made to the authorities to spaxe the wrong doer f rom the legitimate rewards of his wrong doing, until he is finally set at liberty and goes forth to prey upon society again. The writer was once told by a gentleman who had seen long service as deputy warden and warden in the Michigan state prisons, that he had known but a single case of pardoning during all this service where he believed from his intímate acquaitance with the prisoner, that the pardon was deserved. In most cases the pardon was granted because of the importunities of friends and the intercession of the tender hearted. It is not the severity of punishment so much as the certainty oí its being meted out that deters from crime, renders society safe and satisfies the public conscience. So when there is little probab ility of the criminal being compelled to suffer adequately for his offence and a reasonable certainty that in a brief time, at best, he will be let loose to again engage in a career of crime, it is not surprising that the people take the law into their own hands and put the criminal where he will not again endanger the well being of society. Lynchings are reprehensible under any and all circurnstances but if they are to be stopped there must be a greater certanity of adequate punishment being inflicted through the machinery of the law. ■ Last week a woman came into the Argus office and wished to pay two years subscription. She tendered a ten dollar bill. The writer had to go out to get the bill changed, and after going to several places was accommodated, receiving for the ten dollar note two one dollar bilis and eight silver dollars. Returning to the office he tendered the woman the eight silver dollars. She denmrred to receiving it. Thereupon she was given the two one dollar bilis and six silver dollars. This was the best that could be done, and she received the silver but expressed her dislike for the silver money. Suoh occurrences are common. The people don't want this so-called "money of the people. ' ' Whatever the advocates of silver inay say to the contrary, the fact remains that silver as a circulating medium is not popular and never has been. It is bulky and heavy to carry and the people prefer paper money. There are tons of silver in the treasury bnt it cannot be gotten iuto circulation. The government is that anxious to get it into circulation that it will pay the freight on it to any part of the country but there is no demand for the silver. While the treasury holds nearly $500,000,000, there was in circulation last year but $59,000,000 in round numbers. In fact there has not been to exceed 65, 000, 000 of silver in circTilation during any one year since 1886, It is a legal tender for aii debts that are not expressly made payable in something else anrt vet the people don 't want it. The people are responsible for its not being in circulation. This lack of desire for silver on the part of the people may be called fad, fashion or prejndice or any other name you please, thecoldfact remaius that there is very limited demand for the silver. "Coin's" assertion, therefore, that silver is the money of the people and gold of the rich is simply a catchy phrase used to conjure with. But when examined as to fact, it is not true. What the people most want in a circulating medium in this age of deferred payments is absolute stability of valué so f ar as it is possible to secure it. That metal will be mcstdesired, therefore, as basic money whieh secures the nearest approach to this indispensable quality and at the same time possess the greatest value in the emallest bulk. The lower house of the Prussian Diet recently passed a resolntion urging the government to take steps toward the seeuring of international bimotalism. At the same time, however, another resolution was passed to the effect that Germany is to act only in conjunction with Great Britain. At about the same time at the Lord Mayor's banquet in London, Sir William Vernon Harcout, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared that England would abide by the ñscal aad inonetary principies which had made the United Kingdom a power in the world of flnance, and that she was not prepared, at home or abroad, to enconrage the opinión that under any circumstances she would depart from those principies. Now if Germany will only act in conjunction with England and England will not act at all, there is no very good prospect for international bimetalism so far as those two nations are concerned. Various papers speak of the reply of Congressman Bryan to the great speech of Secretary Carlisle. We fail to see where the repiy comes in, however. The speech of Carlisle was a veritable compendium of sound flnancial principies, a masterful argument in favor of his side of the issue. The vaporing of Bryan, on the other hand, consisted of an assault on the secretary on account of his change of position on the issue since the time, seventeen years ago, when Carlisle made a speech in congress on the question, and the pyrotechnical use of a lot of epithets. His mouthings were marked throughout with a great constipation of ideas. The fewer such men the silverites send out to match against John G. Carlesle, the stronger their cause will be. Chili, probaably the most advanced of the South American republics, recently adopted the gold Standard. She pro vides, however, for the f ree coinage of silver but at a ratio of 33% to 1. She also limits the legal tender function of silver to sums of $50 and under. In establishing the ratio, she followed the principie that has always obtained and bases the legal ratio upon the commercial value of the two metáis. The greatest difficulty the Chilians will experience with their new silver money will probably be in the fatigue resulting from the carrying around of dollars weighing nearly two ounces. If the swaggering, bullying, territory- stealing, chip-on-the-shoulder policy of Great Britian is so reprehensible, and the jingoists of our country are constantly twisting the lion's tail for this, why do these self same people do all in their power to have the United States adopt the same policy? Uncle Sam has always gotten along very well and maintained his standing and dignity by mindiug his own business. Wheat was 54 cents on the Pontiac market May 24, 1894. On May 24, 1895, it was 76 cents. How the prophecies of the McKiuleyites are ing fulfillud.