OCR Text |
Show ) 175 A POLITICAL TEXT-BOOK FOR 1860. ernment, thnn the other ?epartments of the .o.overn-~ pt·cme Court of the Uuitcd States annulled tbe ment ha ve1 ~o prescribe or dtrect those of the Judicmry.- judgment in the State court, a 11 d issued a man. lb., paye 9~3· . . ?at~ to the Superior Cou:t of Georgia, to carry Till!: SEDITIO~ LAW. 1ts Judgment of reversal111to execution. Jud~>o Wh •n the C:t~c of Ma.tth?w Lyon was b~f?re Denning proceeds : 0 tlte Unitl•tl tatcs c nate 111 1818, on petition n:-~kin('r' inde lllnitv for a tine imposed upon him 0 • under the Sl•dition Law, J ohn J. Urittcndcu, of Kt>ntucky , said: 'l'llc judidary Is n valunhlc pnt·t of the Government, and ought lo be ltighly re11pcctcd, !Jut is n o ~ infallible. 'l'he Constltlltion i~ our guide-our !!llpreme Ia w. Jllincl hom aRe can nevet· be l"l'tHlen:d by CrecmL'n to auy powet·, ln all cases of alleged violation~ of the Comtitutiou, it \vas for Congress to make a just discriwiuation. - B m1ton'1J .Abridyment, 'Vol. 6, paoe 1 4. Natbanicl Macon, of North Carolin:l, on the eamc day s1id : According to some gentlemen, \ve were to regard the J11diciary more than the law, and both more than the Constitution. lt was a misfortune tbc judges were not equal in infallibility to the God who made thcUl. 'I' he truth was, if the judge was :1. party-man out of power, he would be a party-man in. 'l'he ollicc would not change human nature. He llad no doubt that the Sedition l~aw, and the proceedings under it, had more etrcct in revolutionizing the G overnmcnt than all its other acts. He well remcmhered the language of the times-pay your taxes, but don't speak ngain~t government.- I bid., pa(Je 1 7. Hon. Ja.mes Barbour, of Virginia, made a report on the ~ nhjcct of the petition, of which the following is an extract: The first question that naturally presents itself in the investigation kl, was the law constitutional? The committee have no hesitation in pronouncing, in their opinions, it was not. . . • 'l'hc committee at·c aware that, in opposition to this view of the suhject, the decision o! some of the judges of the Supreme Court, sustaining the constltuUonality of the lnw, has been frequently referred to, as sovereign and conclusive of the question. Now, what did Georgia do on rccciJlt of tlns special mandate? 1'hrough every dcp:trtment of her go,·crnment she treated the mandate nnd the writ of error with cootempt the most profounrl. She did not even protest against jurisdiction, ns she had done In the case of Chisholm's executors; but she kept Worcester nnd llutler in tho pcnitcnt.lary, and she executed, in the Creek nation the laws, for viol:tting which they had been put in th~ pcnltentinry. • . . Judge Benning , in tlclivel"ing IIi:; opiuio11, ard further: · It was not only in this case that C:eorgia occuplt!d thie position ; she did it in two other cases, and tho:~e, case~ or life and death: the case of Tassels, un1l that of Gra1·~s. One of these happened before those of Worcester an<l Butler, namely, in 1 80; t.be other aftcrwanl, In h34, 'L'he 'uprente Court had issued \Hi~s of error in each of these cases, on tho application of the dcfcudant to th~ State of Georgia; but, ns the c~ses arc not t·eJJOrtc<l, it w to be presumed that these wnkl never got back to the Supreme Court; or that, if they ever tlid, iL "as too late. It is certain that G orgia hung the l\Jlpticanl:i for the writ. In the Tassels case, tho legislatut·c passed these, among other re ~oJution : Resolved, 'l'hat the State of Geoq:;ia will ll(' Ver so far compromit her sovereignty, as an in<kpendent State, as t~ become a party to the case sought to he marie before the Supreme Court of t.he Uuitcd 'Lutes by the writ in q11~ lion. R esolroed, That his excellency tllC Go,·crnor he, ant! he and CYcry other ofliccr of this State b hereby, reqn.:ste<l and enjoined to disregard any :wd C\'ery mandate and process that has been or shall l>e SCITCd on him or Litem, purpot'ting to proceed from the Cldef .Just it'l' or an.v A sao· ciate Justice of the .. uprcmc Conrt of the t'tlill'd Statt's, for the purpose of an·c ·ting tho execution of any of tllt criminal laws of this State. Similar resolutions were passed, as to the case of Graves, by the Iegislatmc of 1834. PENNSYI.YANIA. The conunittee entertain a high respect for the purHy ond intelligence of the Judiciary. llnt it is n rational respect, lhuited by ~~ knowledge of the fmilty of human nature, and the theory of the Constitution, which declares not only that Judges may en in opinion, but also rnay commit crimes, and hence has provided a tribunal for the t.rla.l of oll"enders. GEORGIA. In the c:~.se of Paddleford, Fay, & Comp:my v. the Mayor and Aldermen of the city of Savannah, Judge llenning, in delivering tbe opinion of the court, rec ited two or three cases in which the s~ate of Gcor·gia had acted in di regard of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the Uuitetl States. In the case of Chi~holm executor·, ngainst Georgia, the Supreme Cour~ of the Uuited Statc,.,- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of the Commonwen.lth v. ColJbett, gavo a unanimous opinion in 178S, from which tho fol· lowing i~ an extract: o,·de1·ed, that unless the said State sha11 either in due form nppcar, or show cau::~e to the contrary in this court by the first day of next term, judgment by .d,efault sball be ente1·ed against the said StaLe. The reporter a<lcls, in a note, that "in Februnt·y term 1794, jurlgment 'UJ(l~ ren<lerud for the plaintilf and a writ of inquiry awarded. 'l'be writ, however was ~ot llUed out and executed; 110 that this cause, and ali of the ot.her suit:! against States, were llWe11t at once from the records of the court by the amendment of the l<'ederal Constitution 11 Georgia treated the court with contempt in resp~ct to this case. Her position was, that the court hnrl no jurisdiction of her as a pw·ty.-Georoiu Report8, vol. 14 p(t(!e 419. ' 'l'he Judge proceeds to say, that ''in this pos ition Georgia triumphed," and that the jud('r'. m8ot against her "fell dead." 0 'l'he J u tlgc next cites the case of Worcester and Butler, who bad settled on the Cherokee lands in Georgia, contrary to the laws of the State, a~d fo_r which offense they were s ent to the pcmtent1ary. On a writ of error, the Su- If a State should differ with the United States about tho construction of them, there is no common umpire but the llCOple1 who should adjust the afi"uir hy making amendments m the constitutional way, or suffer from the defec~ ln such a CHsc, the Constitution of the United States Ill federal ; it is a league or treaty made by the individual St.atcs as one party, and all the States as auoiher part.y. When two nat.ions dHrer al>out the meaning of any clause, seutcncc, or word, in a treaty n either has an exclu 'ive right to decide it; they endca~or to adjust U1e matter by negotiatlnn; hut if it cannot he thus a ccomplbhed, eacb has a right to retain its own interpretalion 1 until a reference be had to the mediation of other nattons, and nrbi· tration, or t.he fate of war. There is no pt·odsion in the Constitution that in such a case t.he judges of the Supr~me Court of the United "tales shall control and he conclusive; neither can the Congree.s hy a law confer that power.Re., jmutic(' v. Ouuuett, 3 DullaB's R epor ts, pa(Je 415. VIRGINIA. Tho Court of Appeals of Virginia, in 1814, in the case of Hunter v. Martin, devi~ec of Fair· fax, entered the following unanimous opinion, nfter· full argument: Tho court is unanimously of opinion that the nppell~te power of the Supreme Court of the United , tatrs does no' extend to this court uncler a sound constrnctlon of the Consthntlon of the United States· tlll\t so much of th~ twenty-lifth section of the a ct of Congress to cs~nblish the judicial courts of the Unltecl Stntcs a~ extt•ntls the nppellate jurisdiction or the Supreme Court to this court is not In PU11!uance of the Constitution of the Uuited i'tate~; \hut the writ or error in l.hb cMC was iaqn·o1 idcntly aJ POWER OF TTIE UPlU~ME COURT CO~SIDERED. l ~7 . . t. th:tt the proc ·cd-~ the Queen of Scots, the judges were tnstructed to <"OD· wed unc\er the authortty of th.\t ~~t 'wen: curclll~ non dcmn J1cr, :u1<l by their sentence ~:~he ca.ne to the. lllo~k. ~ 6 thrr'~on In the St.tpr '111 ~ Y~nu tlutt ohedj ·ucc to its 1 This horrid deed was covered hy the c!oak of JIHiict~l • g [" tIn rdution to thts c_out t • ' pr<Jceecling~. When Charles I., dctermmed to change Jlt~:~~~te be <lcclitlctl l!y tim; court.. t 'lgil"ltlng the . 1 ~he religion of :;;cotland, he m:ule use of the Court of Dl~n 'tinH·s of violcut party .<·~~.~:!n~l.'i~l 'h~ l't; tirch· •x- High Conlmis ·ion to effect the ohject. H.~· the same judi I le n·ttion to expect that JlH .,~. f 1 • ,110 1 .• 111'1•0 11f rhl J>Ower the advocates for the doctnncs of the Re 1f lO ' 1 • • • • n•cR "l llr(J Ollll( IJ! ' , ' 1 1t from Its mllucnte, ,u g ... '. ' , . ulue th. arc fonnation have t:!O often hecn <}t ' vested o f tJ 1c.1.1 · · •J\giOU" 1 c ~ ~~:lkincl. Although. clothed ~ntl: t~~~t ~:.1;tt. til~ pa~;.;lons privilegl',;, nud doomed to cal with their blood tl~at re· till men and carry mto the _JtHl~m,cl 'J'l :It" tl ·c·i::;ions on li••ion which bore them triutnphautly through the' ale ot ! •. to th en· kttH. 1l • "' and mottvcs common . 1 r · 1 • 1 opinion" wltkh de~~h. . arty quest ions reflect their n< ~vH l:,t 1 1 to c r;·~r 'l'o 'J'Ile ~!tort tltouglt Rplcndid ltlsiory CJf th1s Govcrnrncn frequently hetray them UtH:nnscwu::.ly In th ·tt of t.II'O or fnrni~llc" nc:tlting that can Induce us to look wilh :~ ver~ hi•I•Jnce the J"utl••mcnt of a whole pe<l>i' .c 'Yfl" . ' l el•·v··t"tl>tl hvot.,tble C' c to the Fc<lc> rn.l Judiciary as a safe depoSI· th. .• c men no m,..a tter w1 1 .,1 t m',I .y he t' tl'll" .o 1.c ta . ,· " • · ' ·' . · 1 .. n •e 1 "ttl viola. 1 0 c ils tory of our lthert tes. " I it'll a :tw 11 .ts en c. < is r~o cxtdt the creature of tile Cc~n~tttu;wt~tr,l Jlo~itica.l tion of fl vital principle " ' t.he Constitution, that which creator, nncl io ns~ail the fc!t~ndat wn o '~~ >le\s illfal- was designed to secure the f. cedom of speech nr:d of the fnbrlc· which l:i, th:tt the tlcclstou 7fl tlt'~olll l'\vcu-J:Jee JH" l'I'S the victims or its operation looked In vamltol~~e IIIJie r:·om whi ch there Is no appca H~ : . 1 • · juugd~ to arre~t the progress of usurpation. C .s Belllott'B Abridoment, vot. 6, pct(!e8 6UO, 6G • • power could cl·er he cxc <"ised to any good purpo e, It u II D"c l·crson of Ncw-Jcr..-e,·, saul: would be on such occca-ions, to declare the law u n~o l!- ru.lll Oil I.~ , ' • ... . ., Ill en- stitulion~l which a ims a d•·:, <l ly blow at the vital pnnci- Dut I must heg leave to clJffcr from the ~~~nol\~~ u~ ~h·tt lies of frccdorn. hut, S0 far as the transactions of that tlemno (Mr. Walker, of G co~·gia) \\~tcln .. h~l~lfot~t· lihcrti~s :lay a re dctailed'ln our pu t. lic records, It nppca~s that our lodependent Judl~lary 11:3 th? u .:' ,it 1 •fendtrs of the the J udiciary was a willlllg lnstrut~cnt of Fcdera ufsttt fthe cople. By winch he mu~t m~. t,n, < e ' .. 1 'l'hat. law was executed Ill all the ri~or o le ~coplepngainst th~ oppressions!~~ th~_;,;;n:~~~:;l;~~~l. l ~ :~~.~~ ~~~·~it;\~1 l~ltich dictuted it. 'l'hc tur!Julenccf Of f~C~l.~_tl n\~~~ what I witnessed m the 'ylcars ·J.tt '<!"tc<·I·Ill~Y· ·ts the 'll!llwllrk no modemtion there; nnd the ipcopfltel ~~nc,letcet"tvtec fran-h 11 I ever can consH cr out · · . · , . · 'l'l1c excrc se o 1cu ~/u;c l~ertles or' the pcopl?· 'l:he pcoplc.;.lll11~t(t1(/0;~0~ut ~UI~c;.~1~1~~~e~o;~1~1 ~vii, and thia! is their ouly safe depcn-for other bulwarks for their h hcrtles.- ee ~ :J., I . d c~ce. RICHARD M. JOIINSON, 01<' K~:NTU(;KY . Mr. John:;on, who wa . rlcct.ed Vicc-~resid cnt of the Unit d States by the Dcmoc_rauc J~n r t.y~ rcpre cntcd Kentucky in the Uuttcd St:tt , Senate in 1 ' '22. I find in B e uto n'1:1 AlJn<lgmcnt of the Dcuatcs of C'ongrrss, vol. 7, p:t~'C 14.5 nn clitbomtc speC'ch of ~lr. J~hn~on upon '" res~lution offered by him, propo ·mg n.r.1 _ame ndment of the Constitution. llis ~ro~O.' ltion was to amend t.hc Constitmio n uy r e lemng all c~se, iu which a Stn.tc may he n party to the fmal adjudication of the Senate. Iu the course of hi:; remar·ks, he says: At this time there Is unfortunately, a want o_f co~fidence In the lt'edcrnl Judiciary, in cases U~a~ mv~1 v.~ political power; anti this distrust my he carne too tel cases such as the In wyers callml'ttm et t1~wm. . . Co~rts also like cities and villnges, or hkc l cgt~lattve bodies will s~metimcs have their leaders ; :u~d 1t may hap1)e~ that a !Jingle individual will he the ymmc cnus 1 ·e or li de'c iS.I On 't O OV(.'rturn t 1l e d C !"I ,'1 e1"'L tc "'"C L of a. w. .h o e State or of the United tates; ~· ct, w~ are n~lmomt>h~~l to re'celve their opinions as the anctcnts dH~ the 1 ~sponscs of the Delphic omcle, or the .J cws, wtlh. mo1 ~ propriety the communications from Heaven, d ehvcre,c b" Ul'im' and n~111moin1 to the Iligh Priest of Go<l s chJ osen people from the 11' an<· t ton tw 11 t ·toJ'lWL· . Other cn.usc~ of ditret~encc might be multip li.~ul to a. tcchous extent · but enough has been said to show that Judges, ~vh o , like ~ther men arc subject to the frailties, tire passiOns, the pn.rtinlitie:;: and antipathies, incident t ~ I.'~ man ~a~ ture should not be exempt ed from re~ p ons tlnltty ou. c cou1;t oftheit· 1mperior intcgrit.v, lcan~ing, an<~ Cl~l.~.n~t~; or that their deci::~ions should IJe _E'uliJCCt to I evtst~ ft ~ome competent tribunal, respon!lthle to the people. ill believed that thls ls the opinion of that great and goo~ mnu who penned the Declarat.ion of Jn(\epenclence, an who now enjoys in the shalletl of ~lont1• ce 11 o, the IJie:;s- I • inps of the principles which it cont alii B. • • • • lt wns the judgment of a court that doomed tllC 1mmortal Soc• ates to drink the hemlock. When tl~e H ou~ltll tyrant coul<l no longer 11sc a hired soldiery to tmutolate the viclims of his jealou~.r, he resorted to cou~"l~ of ~ ~~i When llcnry Vllr of Englflt1<11 would exct CtSe Cl UC dcsp!ltlstn under th~ forms of a free Constitution, the army, the court and the Parliament., were the potent engines t.hat sustained him. When Mary, 1_11s daughter, compelled the l'rotestunts to seal their tcst tmony at tJle ~take, the court gave sanction to the murdet·ous dec ~f II~r sister and succt!ssor, Elizabeth, creat.e.cl tl~e <::ourt ~lllgh Commission and formally invested 1t wt th 1~quls torhd JIOwcr. Sh~ also supported the arbitrary e~ICtS of the dlU" Ch:unber. 'l'he l'urita.ns, because obnOXIOUS ~o the frre exercise of the prerogati I'C!:! of the Crown, wet e ilup isone<l and disperse<! by process of \a,v_, and ,th_c jn<lge' were the 1:1upporters of her despottc PO'\ et. Wbcu she would destroy Iter unfortunate kinswoman, 12 GEN. JACKSON. T he followi" cr is an extract from G<:n. Ja~kRo n's lll CSRacrc '~ct oing the bill for r cchartcrmg t.h' B:Luk of the Unite(l tates. It may be found on page 43 of the Senate Joum::tl for the liJ\'t RC~ ·ion of tho 'l'wcnty-scconu Congre~ ' :wei is in these words: If the Oj).l ll!.O n of tile Supreme Court. cov· eIr elld the I f tl is ltct it ougl>t not to contt o Je cowh~ le grouu< 1).· l f 'I! 0 vernment. 'l'hc Congress, orduHLIC autholltics 0 "n:~, 0. , 1 for it elf bo the Executive, aud th~ .<.:om t, mustC caci.~ lion Eaclt . 1 l "t owu Olnnton of the ons 1 u . gutdel >Y 1 1:1 oath to support the Constl· pul~lic omc~r.' 1\11 10 tt~~e!i;;r~upport it as he understnnds ~ut!On, sw~~~~sit i~autHierstoo<l by others. It is ns much lth, a3dt~oor'thc llouse of {t(•prcscntati ves, or th~ ~nat~, t, c u ) . to decide upon the conRtttutlOnn - ~nd off tho_ ~'.1."~1·1~\~~~~olullon which may be presented to tty o any ul 1 it is of the supreme them for pas~age .or 1 a.Jll:::~~;h't ~~efore thew for j udidal judges, wh en tt ~~ ,~~ J~ f the judges has no more authordecision. 'J'hc opml n >inion of Congrc:~s over the ity over Congrc:;s g~~~~ tl~~~~tl the P resident is indcpcn<l- J.udges ; and, on tat! Jl "ty 'or t'te Snprcme Court must l tl 'J'he 'Lu ton • cnt of ,o L ' "tt ;cl to control the Congress or not, therefore, he pcrm.t e.n their legislative capacities, the Executive when acltn.lgduence ll.S t.hc force of tlteir but to have only sue 1 w reasoning nw.y deserYe. TilE OTUER SIDE OF TilE QUESTION. l!R. WEBSTER'S VIEWS. • The other side of this quest ion was luc.tdly .I bl , st~ ted by the late Danie l W ebster, mba 1\llu a ) " U s s ate on t e !:lpccch delivered bcfo~·e t~1e the 'ra~~us , debate 27th of January, 1 30, 1~ ~f outh Car-between Mr. \V. nud Mr:- ayn;,llo ;vs. . v t'' Rc~olutwn, as 10 \ . ohna, on .roo . ' • . . d to Mr. \V cbster, . Mr. Ilayne hn.vlllg te~omt.c 1 question Mr. cspccm· lly on t 1r iC c· onst.Itu 101. 1a .d. ' . d in conclu JOn, at . Webster rose, nn ', . n this consliiutlonal nrgu- A. few words, Jlfr. I rcstldent, ~Ieman has labored to rcment, which the honoral> e gcu construct. i l f two propositions and an Infer- His arl{umcnt cons s s o ence. Jlit~ propo~ltion~ arf: l a compact bel ween tho 1st. That tho Constltut on s Stales. tween two with authority re- 2d. That a compact ht ~t . terms w~ulll be a. surrender served to one t 0 interpre I lS • , , . wllutever. to that one of nil JlOI\e~ I b inference) the General Gov- 8d. 'l'hcreforc, (sue~ .Is t'hc llUthority to construe lts own ernmeut docs uot po!:!scss powers. |