Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/381

 280

THE GREEN BAG

wish to do nothing, while appearing to do something for which, at the moment, there seems to be a public demand. He did not merely occupy a senatorial seat, he filled it. He was not merely a member of the body, whose vote would count, but a constructive statesman with the capacity to perceive both the evil to be cured and the remedy to be applied, and the ability to enforce his views by reason, authority and illustration. One instance may be noted which shows the value of his legal judgment in the per formance of his legislative duties. When the Sherman Anti-trust act was under consideration, eighteen years ago, Senator Gray criticized the bill first proposed as probably an ineffective remedy for the evils apprehended from trust combinations. He offered and urged an amended bill cov ering these points. 1. Authorizing the President and making it his duty, by proclamation to suspend for ninety days the customs duty upon any trust-made article, upon being satisfied that, in consequence of a trust, contract, agreement, or combination, the price of the article had been enhanced. 2. To exempt from the operation of the act combinations of laborers for lessening hours of labor or increasing wages, and also of persons engaged in agriculture and horticulture to enhance the price of their products. 3. To authorize the Federal Courts to dismiss any suits in which it should be pleaded and proved that the cause of action was founded upon a trust agreement or combination such as the act was intended to prohibit. The entire proposal was negatived by a strict party vote, but on the first proposition offered separately by Senator. Gray, though it was defeated, Senator Edmunds of Ver mont voted affirmatively with the Demo crats and Senator Blodgett of New Jersey in the negative with the Republicans. Leaving out of question differences of opinion as to the political bearing of this

proposed legislation, it must be admitted that the position taken by Senator Gray in this matter is of interest to every student of our political history, especially in view of the action of the present administration in the enforcement of the anti-trust acts, the pending discussions in Congress respect ing proposed modifications thereof, and the recent decisions of the Supreme Court con struing them. After only three years' service in the Sen ate, Mr. Gray had strongly impressed him self upon that body, then comprising many able lawyers, and his legal ability had been conspicuously manifested and generally rec ognized on both sides of the Chamber. Accordingly, after the death of Chief Justice Waite, Mr. Gray's name was included among those who were proposed as his suc cessor, and he was earnestly recommended by his colleagues of the Senate without dis tinction of party. The suggestion of his name also evoked an expression of con fidence, esteem and admiration from the Bench and Bar of his own State which has probably never been exceeded, if equalled, in the case of any lawyer. A reference to the opinions then publicly expressed shows that every judge, Federal or State, and every member of the Bar (including all who have since held judicial positions) in Delaware expressed the belief that in every sense he was worthy to be called to the highest judicial position. The late Chief Justice Comegys, before whom Senator Gray had constantly practiced, but voiced the general opinion, as individually expressed, when he said that there was no man in the country, so far as he knew, better qualified for this high office. What is herein said of the character and legal attainments of Senator Gray is fully supported by the ex pressions made public at that time. It is believed that nowhere in the country was there any doubt of Mr. Gray's fitness for any judicial position, and that other considera tions of a political nature had their influence with reference to him as to the ten or twelve