The Nonpartisan Leader Newspaper, May 19, 1919, Page 6

'/ tion bills must originate in the lower house, I /////% '/ 2 Yo Tonpartisan Teader Official Magazine of the National Nonpartisan League—Every Week Entered as second-class matter September 8, 1915, at the postoffice at St. Paul, Minnesota, under the Act of March 8, 1879. OLIVER 8. MORRIS, Editor E. B. Fussell and A. B. Gilbert, Associate Editors . B. O. Foss, Art Editor Advertising rates on application. Subscription, one year, in advance, $2.50; six months, $1.50. Please do not make checks, drafts nor money orders payable to indi- viduals. Address all letters and make all remittances to The Nonpartisan Leader, Box 575, St. Paul, Minn. 3 MEMBER OF AUDIT BUREAU QF CIRCULATIONS THE S. C. BECKWITH SPECIAL AGENCY, Advertising Representatives, New York, Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, Kansas City. : Quack, fraudulent and irresponsible firms are not knowingly advertised, and we will take it as a favor if any readers will advise us promptly should they have occasion to doubt or question the reliability of any firm which patronizes our advertising columms. A case of his aunt.’ This estimable lady had a particular aver- sion to tobacco. She had no use whatever for any one who smoked or chewed. A certain president of the United States who was a noted smoker had some trouble during his administration. “What could you expect of such a man ?” the anti-tobacco enthusiast sniffed. She read of a labor meeting at which corncob pipes and “the makin’s” were passed around. Immediately she was opposed to the whole labor movement. One day she saw a minister purchas- ing some cigars. He happened to belong to the Episcopal church, to which the good lady herself belonged. Whereupon she immedi- ately withdrew her membership and became a Baptist. We can not help being reminded of the position that some peo- ple take in regard to the Nonpartisan league. The League legisla- ture of North Dakota enacted a forward-looking measure designed: to allow soldiers to become home owners through state aid. Where- upon North Dakota is criticized for “pampering” the soldiers. The ANY LAWS THAT THE LEAGUE ENAQCTED Y ARE ALL WRONG-./ THE LEAGUE AND ITS CRITICS WRITER in a prominent magazine recently mentioned the North Dakota legislature established a state-owned banking system to provide reserve facilities for other banks and cheaper money for farmers. “Socialistic,” sniff the same critics who had previously indorsed the national reserve and land bank systems. It is too bad that the North Dakota farmers did not allow a legislature composed of business men to enact the reforms so badly needed by the people of that state. Maybe the reason was that they had waited, ever since statehood, for the business men to get around to it, and thought that to wait 80 years more would be too much. - THE POWER OF THE COURTS HEN the Constitution of the United States was adopted s;s/ an effort was made to divide the power and responsibility of government fairly equally between congress, the presi- dent and the courts. Congress was to make the laws, the president was to enforce them and the courts were to interpret them. This plan, adopted in 1789, was based upon the division of authority that existed at that time in Great Britain, the president -of the United States being given the power exercised by the king and his ministry, congress being given the powers of parliament and the courts the power and jurisdiction of the British courts. This similarity existed even in matters of more detail. The two houses of congress were patterned exactly after the two houses of parliament. The senate was intended, by the controlling element in the constitutional convention, to represent wealth and aristoc- racy, as did the house of lords in England, while the house of rep- resentatives was supposed to take the place of the house of com- mons and represent the people. The two houses were given equal authority, except that the provision was made that all appropria- another provision copied from the English system of 1789. : There was one marked difference between the English system ' ‘and the American system.. The United States had a written Con- 15 | i I stitution; England had none. The English system could be changed ' from year to year and was changed as the people came to have more and more voice in government. The power: of the house of PAGE Y Ill/ ,% lords, which was nearly equal with that of the house of commons in 1789, began to wane and the power of the house of commons to, increase. The power of the king became less and less and the power of the ministry grew. Meanwhile in America, with a written Constitution, supposed to define the respective duties, powers and responsibilities for all time, there was no chance of the gradual growth toward more democracy that took place in England. The Constitution was extremely difficult of amendment (it took a figl_lt of 30 years to bring about the direct election of senators) and in the course of time it came about that England, though in theory a monarchy, actually had more political democracy than the United States. One of the reasons for this condition has been the courts. of the United States. In drawing up the Constitution prqviding for CONGRESS PROPOSES | THE PRESIDENT APPROVES | THE COURT._DISPOSES. & \ o ‘;ljlllllllllllllflx 2S equal division of authority between congress, the president and the courts, the drafters overlooked one thing. This was that while the term of a representative is two years, the term of a president four years and the term of a senator six years, federal court judges are appointed for life. - . ‘When the supreme court of the United States was organized it set to work at first to do what the drafters of the Constitution intended—to interpret the laws passed by congress and enforced by the president. But in the course of a few years some men of extremely strong character-—men determined to make their pres- ence felt—came upon the bench. These men decided upon a bold stroke. They decided to go beyond what the drafters of the Con- stitution intended, beyond the powers exercised by the English courts, beyond the powers exercised by judges anywhere in the world. They decided, in short, to rule as to whether the laws passed by congress SHOULD BE ENFORCED OR NOT. They did this by deciding, when any law was presented to them, whether, in their opinion, sit conformed to the provisions of the Constitution or not. No such power could be exercised by the English courts, because England has no written constitution. But the federal judges, holding office for life, were able to make their theory stick. Thus the system of federal courts became immensely more power- ful than either the president or congress, for after congress has passed a bill and after the president has signed it, there is always the question of whether the courts will allow it to take effect. This theory of the power of the courts, which came to be an accepted doctrine through the complaisance of the early presidents and congresses, is one of the most discouraging features of the American system of government to men who want to see this country progress. This power has always been exercised by the cour%s to prevent progressive legislation in the interests of the people. 3 5 ; As early as Civil war times, for instance, congress passed a law to raise money by an income tax. As soon as the law was brought before them, the members of the supreme court, by a five to four vote, declared it unconstitutional. Thus one judge, by turn- ing the scale, had more power than the president and the entire membership of congress. To provide for an income tax it was necessary to amend the federal Constitution. Two-thirds of the membership of both houses of congress had to agree to this change and then the amendment had to be ratified by majority votes of both houses of three-fourths of the legislatures of the ‘states. It has been estimated that one-fortieth of the population of the United States, in the right states, can block any amendment of the Con- stitution, even. if the representatives of the other thirty-nine-for- tieths all vote according to the wishes of their constituents. It was not until 1913 that the federal income tax amendment finally was adopted. S 63 As lately as 1910 the supreme court of fhe United States held . PLEASE YOUR HONOR AN / HAVE THIS LAW SUPREME covreT. a workmen’s compensation act invalid. Although meanwhile nearly ° three-fourths of the states of the Union have adopted workmen’s compensation acts, it was not until a year ago that the supreme court of the United States became progressive enough to approve this legislation, and then they only approved it by a five to four SIX: