Rock Island Argus

Attacking the Courts.

It wasn't so very long ago that our republican friends declared that it was a great sin and a shame for any one to criticise a federal court. They were, no doubt, sincere in this, but, anyway, they thought that it would help their party to make a great outcry against any one who had the temerity to criticise the action of a federal court: and because democrats did this, they were by some republicans called anarchists. And this was no longer ago than 1896 --ten short years ago.

And what do we see now? The republican president of the United States pitching into a federal court and simply wiping the earth up with a federal judge and asking congress to pass a law which will, in future, render impossible such a decision as that recently rendered by Judge Humphrey. But do you hear any republicans crying out very loud about it?

As a matter of fact, a court is as amenable to criticism as any other thing on earth. A court is merely human - and very human at that. It doesn't put a halo around the head of a shyster lawyer, or a good lawyer either, for the people to put him on the bench. It doesn't change the character of a man a particle for the people to elect him to a judgeship. A man is just as good, and no better; just as fallible after he is elected as he was before.

One court doesn't pretend that there is any sacredness about the decision of another court. One court reviews and upholds or sets aside the decision of another without the least compunction-as it is its duty to do. The idea that there is anything sacred about a federal court, or any other, is the merest fol-de-rol.

Respect for the court is one thing: contempt is another. There may be honest differences when the court is conscientious, but contempt when it abuses its powers and prerogatives is natural.

or any other, is the merest fol-de-rol and our daily actions prove that this is the way we look at this matter

If the actions of a court couldn't be criticised or demurred to, lawyers would have to go out of business. The most of their business is contending against the rulings of the courts. In every suit that's tried the lawyers are contending with the court, either on one side or on the other, or on both sides. They are ever trying to prove to the court that he's in the wrong, and then when he does finally give his decision, they take exceptions to most of his rulings and go over his head to a higher court.

The court is the bulwark of the nation, where it is honest