The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-04-03
SUPREME COURT,
OF THE UNITED STATES.
FLETCHER, 2MARsHALL. CHI. deiiuer.
U.s.. ed the ohinion of the

cause comes on again to be heard on sundry
demurrers and on special verdict.
The suit was instituted on several cove
nants contained in a deed made by John
Ieck, the defendant in error, conveying te
Robert Fletcher, the plaintiff in error, Ger
tam lands which were part of 4 large pur-
chase made by James Gum and others
In the year 1875, from the state of Georgia,
the contract for which was made in the
form of a bill passed by the legislature Of
that state
The first count in the declaration sets
forth breach in the second covenant con.
tanned in the deed. The covenant is tina,
the legislature of the state of Georgia, a,
the time of passing of the act of sale afore-
said, had good right to sell and dispose oil
the same IN manner poin1ed out by the
said act" The breach assigned is that the
legislature had no power to sell.
The plea in bar sets forth the constitute
on OF the state of Georgia and AYERS that the
lands sold by the defendant to the plaintiff
were within that state. 1t then sets forth
the granting act, and ayers the power of
tine legislature to sell and dispose of the pre-
misses as pointed out by the act.
this plea the plaintiff below demurred,
and the defendant joined in demurrer.
That the Legislature of Georgia, unless
restrained by its own constitution, posscsse S
the power OF disposing of the unappropria-
ted lands within its own limits, i'm sash man
ner as its own judgment shall dictate, is a
proposition not to be contSoverted. The
only question, then, presented by this de
murrer, tor the consideration of the court,
Is this-did the then constitution of the
state OF Georgia prohibit the legislature to
dispose of the lands, which were the subject
OF this contract, in the manner stipulated by
the contracta
The question, whether 2 law be void for
Its repugnancy to the constitution, is at all
times question of much dclicacy, which
ought seldom, if ever, to be decided i'm the
affirmative, in doubtful case. The court.
when impelled by duty to render such a
Judgment, would be unworthy of its station,
Gould 1t be unmindful Of the solemn obliga-
tlons which that station imposes. But it is
not on slight implication and wage conec-
ture that the legislature is to be pronounced
20 nave transcribed its powers, and its acts
to be considered as void. The opposition
between the constitution and the law should
be such that the judge feels clear & strong
conviction Of their incompatibility with each
other.
In TINS case the court can perceive no such
opposition. In the constitution Of Georgia,
adopted in the year 1879. the court can per
ceiTe no restriction on the legislative pow
er, which inhibits the passage Of the act Of
1878. The court cannot say that, in pas
sing that act, the legislature has transcen..
oed ITS powers and violated the CONSTITUTE
on.
In oVerruling the demurrer, therefore. to
ne nfst plea, the Circuit court committed
no error.
The Sd covenant is, that all the title which
the state OF Georgia ever had in the premi-
SEES had been legally conveyed to John Peck,
the grantor.
1he I'd count assigns. in substance, as q!
breach OF this covenant, that the original
grantees from the state of Georgia promis.
ed and assured divers members of the leeis-
lature, then sitting in General Assembly,
that. if the said members would assent 10
and vote for the passing Of the act, and if,
the said bill should pass, such members
should have share of, and be interested in
all the lands purchased from the said state
by virtue OF such law. And that divers of
the said members, to whom the said promi-
ses were made, were unduly influenced there
by, and, under such influence, did vote for
the passing of the said bill by reason where
OF the SAID law was nullity &c and go the
title OF the state Of Georgia did not pass to
the said PeSk, &c.
ne plea to this count, after protesting
that the promises it alleges were not made
AYERS that, until after the purchase made
from the original grantees by James Green.
leaf, under whom the said Peck claims. nei
ther the said James Greeuleaf nor the said
Peck, nor any OF the mesne vendor, bctweep
the sad Greenleaf and Peck had any M
tice or knowledge that any such promises OF
assurances were made by the said original
grantees, or either of them, to any of the
members of the legislature Of the state o.
Georgia.
To this plea the plaintiff demurred ger
orally, and the defendant joined in demur
rer.
That corruption should find its way into
the governments of our infant republics apd
contaminate the very source of legislation
or that impure motives shosld contribute
10 the passage of law OF the formation Of
legislative Contract, are circumstance
most deeply TO be deplored How far .
Court OF justice would, in any case, be com
petent, on proceedings instituted by the state
ltSeif, 70 vacate contract thus formed. and
10 annui rights acq ..red, under that con
ITact' by third persons having no notice oil
the improper means by which it was oh
ta'ned, IS question which the court wouid
approach with much circumspection. 7,
may well be doubted how far the VALIDITY al
law depends upon the motives of ito fra
mers, and how far the particular induce
ments, operating on members of the supreme
sovereign power of a state, TO the formation
81 contract byitbat power, are examinable
IN court or justice. II the principle be
conceded, that an act Of the supreme soye.
re'gn power might be declared null by a