Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1802-03-18
TIE party stt.in.ed is teized & brought

as party dttd1hACu ID iSiASo ~ OASS6usn
before federal court, and an award ofex-
ecu.ion pallea againit him. He opens the
conRisution and points to this line "no
biil o. a,,ainder or ex pof fatto law ihall
sc paiTed.'' The attorney for the United
States reads the bill of attainder.
The court are bound to decide, but they
have only the alternative of prcnouncing
ne La.v or The esn,qHutios isva!ia. Its
leil to them only TO fay tharsthe law va
cate, the coaiti,ution, or the contribution
avoids the law. So in the other cafe TIA
ted, the heir after the death ofhis ancef-
tcr, brings his ejeament in one of the
courts OF the United States to recover his
inheritance. The law by which it is con-
ifcared is llsewn. The contribution gave
no power to pats fach a law. tln the con-
trary i, expressly denied it TO the govern
mcnt. The title of the heir is reRed on
the contribution, the title of the govern
ment on the law. The effect ofone de.
iroys the effect of the other; the court
,nua determine which is efec,ual.
There remany other cafes, Mr.. Chair
man, of f,nilar nature to which | might
aIlude. There is the cafe of the privilege
otHabeas Corpus, which cannot be iufrend,
ed but in times of rebellion or Of inyaiion.
Suppofe law prohibiting the Hung O. the
writ at moment OF profound peace. 1t
in iucn cafe the writ were demanded of a
court, could they fay, it is true the legif-
latrre were rearained from Pairing the law
fulending the privilege Of this writ, at
iuch time as that which now exits, bat
their mighty power has broken the bonds
of the corrttitu,ion, and feitsred the autho-
rity OF the court. am net, Sir, difpof.
ed 10 yauu,, but itanoiny on this ground |
throw the gauntlet to any champion upon
tue other fde. / call upon them 10 maia-
tain, that in a colIiiion between a law ard
tie contribution, tie Judges are bound to
!upportshe law, and annui the contribution.
Can the gentlemen relieve themle!ves from
this dilemma? Will they fay tho judge
has no power to pronounce law void, he
has a power to declare the contribution liz.
valid.
The Doctrine for which | an contend
ing is not only clearly inferable from the
plain language Of the contribution, bot by
Law has been expressly declared and eaab.
lithed in prattiic Gnce the exiitence of the
government.
The I'd lection of the Cd articlesof tie
contribution expressly extends the judicial
power to all cafes ariirg under the con-
ltitution, the laws, &c. The provilion
in the I'd clauie OF the 9Th article leaves
nothing to doubt. "This contribution s..
the n1vs Of the United States qvhieb .@GN
be made in fuya4uee t6srsof &c. thall be
the Gupreme law of the land" The con-
iiitution is absolutely the fupreme law
Not 70 of the acts Of the ieghlatme.-
Such only are the law OF the land as are
made in tuyIxanes Of TIE eageHxtiau.
beg the indulgence Of the committee
one moment, while | read the following
proviiion from the z5.h fec. of the ju-
dlcisl act of the year 1889: A final
judgment or decree in any fuit in the high
eli court Of law or equity Of fate in
which decilon in the fuit could be
had, 1cbere is draava in qasfion the ga.
li1iy Of a treaty 0, RatHse of, or,1m az
t5ory exsrejtd axder The United Statss,
ard the deejkan Is asainf their valiai1,
Sc. may be re-examined and reverted or
affirmed in the iupreme court of the Unit-
cd States upon writ of error. THUS, as
early as The year 1889, among the hrit
acts of the government, the Legislature
explicitly recognized the right of a fate
court to declare treaty, ifatute. and
an Authority excrcilcd under the United
States void, iubject to the resifon of
the fapren,e court of the United States ]
and it has expressly given the final pow
er to the iufreme court to affirm judg-
nent which is againa The validity either
of treaty, aatute or an authority of
, the government.
/ hunbly trua. Mr.. Chairman, tina,