The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1805-03-01

ence. Among thefc NAV be numbered the
principles which attach TO the government of
every regularly organized community, the
power of pledging the public faith, and that of
alternating the right of foil of the vacant terri
tory of the nation. In every free government,
there mutt exit tine power of legiaitinn ar of
making laws diiinct power charged with the
execution Of the laws, and Judicial power
the union of theie different powers in the fame
man or body Of men IS the very offence OF def
potifm. Thus in France, prior TO the revoluti-
on, II was fundamental maxim of fate, that
the king WAS the legiilator of the French mo-
naTchy; and the power exerciied in forne in
nanCes by certain patliaments, of refuting TO
regilter the edicts OF the monarch, however in
practice, il might operate as an obitrudion to
iegiilation. was in theory only matter of form,
or at mott but 4 temporary check upon the ex-
ecutive power. In oligarchies, the legislative
power is veifed in the rich and noble, and in
ariftocracirs, in a few individuals who are pre-
iuulcd TO be the wifeft and the beit in the COM
'nunity. Ia governments OF the democratic
form, this power reiides in the great body of
the people, and is exerciied by themteIves or
their representatives The hafe of the temple
OF American liberty is democracy, or the fovc-
reigntv of the people representation aud con-
federation are the principal pillars which fup-
port the great fuperitrutture. As the Gate CO.
verninents are unqueitonably representative
democracies, the general government is re-
preventative federal republic. In every govern
riient OF the representative form, the repreitnta-
tives OF the people are veffed with power to
pledge the public faith, and to ALLEVIATE the va
cant territory OF the nation. We're the men,
bers of the Legislature OF Georgia, in 1895, in
vefted with this authority: Certainly ii was
within the fphere of thofe coni;itutional rights
aud powers, which had never been furrendered
TO the general government. We have lince re-
cognized that authority by receiving folemn
deed ct ceition OF the territory, from fubfe-
quent Legislature Of Georgia, transferring to us
not only the foil, but tic right OF iuiiidiction.
Was this authority exerci!ed in l795 In the
act of the Legislature of that fate of the 9TH of
january in that year, granting this TERRITORY to
thoie from whcm the prefent claimants derive
their claims, certain lands are defcribed, and it
is enacted that thofe lands jbaN be Jol2 to fuch
and iuch peTionS, tenants in common and mt
as joivt tenants. The lands ihall be fold, or in
other words, the right of foil nlsl be aienated
a proper dilsintfion is taken between the Io.,;-
mum mite and the do,nini,0u iresAns of the ci-
villains. No transfer was made OF the right of
junldi6tion, although fuch imaginary transfer
forms prominent article in the reafons aligned
by the legislature of 1896 for pailimg the refcin-
ding act. From this view of the fubief, what
ever may be the prefent fate of the auction of
legal title, who can doubt that the prefert
claimants. honeit purchafers from the original
grantees, upon the faith of an independent fate.
and innocent of fraud, if fraud cxiffed, poflel:
fucli a color of title, fuch an equitable claim.
rs to render It prudent and polite to enter into
"a conprorniie with them upon Reasonable
terms
Were the members of the Legislature of Geor-
gia in 1896, inveIted with the constitutional
power of refcinding the act of their predeceC
fors in relatonto zach fale, and did they refcind
them?
Congrefs is incompetent to the decifion of
this quettion. Nor is fuch decilion neceiIary.
will however make one or two enquiries, and
fate one OF two principles, which are applica
BILE to the fubject, and which at the fame time
will go to itrengthen the ground have taken
as to colour of title in the claimants, and the
policy OF extinguiihing their claims.
Can legilature refcind contract made by
its protectors?
Writers on national law make difineion
between laws which operate in the nature of
contracts, and thofe which have no fuch ope-
ration. Every enlightened and reafonabie man
will fubfcribe to the opinion that pledge of
the public faith, given by the competent au-
thority, ought TO he irrevocab!e. Laws which
pledge inc faith al inc community, which, err
ate contracts, which veR rights in individuals
or in corporate bodies, it may fafely be aiIum-
ed as 4 general principle, are irrepealable.
Laws of merely municipal operation are alter
able or repealabe at the pleallre of the exiting
Legislature.
Can the judicial power declare legislative
aa void rs having been pailed by means of cor
ruption
Different opinions have exifted in our coun-
try as TO the right claimed by the judiciary of
deciding upon the contitutionality of laws.
The better opinion ieems to be, that from the
nature OF our government, and the very terms
of the contribution itielf, by which that iRftru-
ment is declared TO be the flpreme law of the
land, the judges not only ought to exercife that
power, but that they cannot avoid its exercife.
II am not miitaken, fome gentlemen who de-
ny that the judges poliefs this right, are pre-
pared TO invet them with the more dangcrons
one OF letting aide a legislative atl on the
ground of corruption. To admit that the irl-
dietary may examine into the motives of the
Legislature in pafiiDg laws, or that they NAV ,e-
ceive and decide upon evidence tending to
prove corruption in the legislative body, would
certainly be going much farther than thofe have
gone who have claimed for that department the
right of deciding upon the conltitutionality of
laws.-Suppofe trial oftitle between a perfon
claiming under the a6t of Georgia of 1895, and
another claiming under the United States, and
fuppofc evidence offered to the court to prove
the corruption of the leginlture Of Georgia, in
what peculiar fituation would the Judges be