Casper Daily Tribune Newspaper, October 27, 1924, Page 10

PAGE TEN. n Educational / :| Should Read and '| Casting Their Vote . THE UNDERSIGNED citizens of Casper and Natrona County, irre-. spective of party affiliation, having only the good of our beloved country at heart, and realizing the educational | value of an editorial published in The i aoe Casper Tribune on October 23d, 4 eager howe Se 1924, hereby respectfully request the . ] qrertor pete ioe without competent ng Tribune to republish said editovial in LaFollette and the’ Court Once, concede, which the LaFollette proposition does that any law which;the congress might pass is right and valid, provided it passes it the sec. ond time following the court’s adverse decision, you have destroyed all safeguards of individual liberty. itr iC be argued that the congress, would not attempt such things, the answer.is that the con- gress has already :attempted such’ things’ many The congress authorized the criminal prosecu- tion of a man after compelling him to testify before a grand jury, and its action was prevented only by;a decision of the supreme court in 1892 ne piesa ss Se fe OE > ert for public uses without: this act was. of the-sn- 2 by preme. tin’ in. Monongahela Navigation, ieee co Seibel tha tngiabcgants. dk : eS BF. at hard labor without even the formality uf display form so'that every citizen re- Tape Caae t's one igs The congress authorized an appeal by. the goy: ernment 1n/a criminal case after the accused had ben’ found not *guility by a jury, this putting the accused in’ jeopardy. twice forthe same act, in violation of the constitution This was prevented oT ceiving the paper will be induced to ee read and study it. the case of United States versus-Evans, The congress by’ resolution authorized the im. prisonment: of a man without a jury trial, and / } ongress has twice attempted to impose a duty or tax on articles being exported from one state into’ another state, and was . prevented by action of the supreme court in 1901 and again in 1915. If Senator Takoustiis bt A fet j ’ ° congress. would pene itted to do anything it re | 7" Pat Sullivan Wm. B. Cobb R. M. Boeke Frank England proposal were a fact, wanted to do, which now is in vialation of the constitution. [eons exemple, it could pass a‘law requiring heya Se as a qualification for public office, z , It could pass a law g.the establish- nent of a religion or Yo probibitsreraie by_any fect or denomination. ; It could pass a.law authorizing the punish- ment of any person without a trial b: jury. It could deprive an accused of public trial. It could pass a law refusing to confront him with witnesses against him, and refuse him permis. sion to haye counsel. It could pass a law subjecting a person for the same offense.to be twice put in jeopardy of his life or his freedom. It could declare any act that it so desired to be treason. ; It could stop free speech by denying the right of any party or organization or group of people to hold public meetings. . i It ‘could abridge the freedom of the press by. suppressing the. aelcetine of any. paper upon! any ground whatever, ‘ It could pass a law depriving a person of his _life or his property without due process of law. It could pass a law‘ to take private property ~for public-use: without compensating the owner, It could pass a law denying the right of people peaceably to assemble. $ It“could_ by mere majority vote wipe out the P. C. Nicolaysen Harry.Free Emmett Fuller i '. Jno. McFadyen : : M. E. Young S. K. Loy it ll W. Winte James P. Kem ° Maxwe otmrer™ 'C.H. Townsend Carl F. Shumaker R. C. Cather i C. Ax Cullen J. W. Johnson . W. J. Chamberlin Q. K. Deaver ¢ Geo. H. Aberhoff~ A. M. Gee : W. J. Wehrili J. King Geo. W. Jarvis Joe L. May A. E. Stirrett W. D. Allely D.W. Ogilbee G. R. Hagens Ivan E, Marshall M. A. Becklinger by. the supreme ‘court in a decision in 1909 in : order, fae efore amendments of the constitution which gfve Wo men the right to vote and which give negroes the tight to vote. , It could impose a tax duty on articles exported from any state into another state. It could give preference by law to the ports of one state over those of another state. All these and many other things are forbidden presen constitution, but the LaFollette. proposal ld over-ride ‘ihe constitution in‘ event con- gress saw. fit to pass such laws twice—once be: fore the cour’t decision and, after it. i If a congress were elected wh was con, trolled by. the “wets” it could a law making the sale of liquor lawful in-spite of the Volstead act and the prohibition amendment. Under: the LaFollette’ plan if the supreme court declared such ‘a law in violation of the constitution, the ~congress could re-pass the law and thereby make en i ‘ My ‘were elected “dry,” it could pass - overwhelmingly a law auxnorizing the search of private houses, personal baggage and even the clothing and per son. of. individuals, without.a search warrant. {f the supreme ‘court declared: this:law unconsti- tational, as it would be the congress could make {t the law nevertheless by the simple process Of re. enacting it. The LaFollette party claim their plan fg need- ed in order to stop the habit of supreme court nullifying acts of the congress and usurping pan: *The records of the supreme court do not ‘ou tt this charge. The supreme court has been in existence from 1789, a period of 134 years. During that time it has rendered 29,310 decis- fons..Of that number only 48 declared ‘acts’ of the ‘congress to be in violation of the constitu: tion. This does not look as though declaring acts of congress unconstitutional had become a con- firmed habit with the supreme court. As tothe charge that the court does this in ‘ usurp power and make this a ment of judicial tryranny, it may be stated nix laws: ofthe congress which the court unconstitutional were declared upon the ground that‘congress had attempted to confer power on the court which the constitw tion did not authorize or justify. This certainly would) not indicate a desire on the part of the pi th oa court for ugurpation of power. ixteen of the 48 congressional laws declared unconstitutional were so declared on the ground they violated the rights of states. In other words, the decisions were rendered not in erder to usurp power for the supreme court, but to preserve to the several states the power and right and privilege which the consti: tution expressly gives them, " Seven of the 48 decisions declared acts of cori gress unconstitutional because they attempted to do specific things which the constitution express- ly ‘says congress does not have the to do. This accounts for 29 out of the 48 decisions of the supreme court declaring acts of congress unconstitutional. The remaining 19 were declared unconstitutional because they violated the rights of- individual citizens, such as depriving them of their liberty, their property, their freedom of worship and speech, their right to assemble peaceably, etc. In other words, the supreme court, instead of being an instrument of tryranny, oppressing the public arid depriving them of liberty has, quite to the contrary, sided with the people to protect their rights guaranteed by the const! tution against an attempt of congress to deprive them pf these rights. Sis Senator LaFollette’s proposal is to take from the people and the states this bulwark of their liberty and leave them defenseless against any and all legislation which congress in a time of passion and high excitement might enact. Senator LaFollette also makes much of the fact that court decisions have been handed down by a mere majority of one. The actual facts are these—that during the period of 134 years only nine of ‘the 29,310 decisions have been made by & majority of one, - Political Advertisement. MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1924, ‘ . OW: |