The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1810-10-12

have seen this Court. not only shutting its
own eyes against circumstances and badges
OF fraud, existing upon the face of all the
documents referred 10 in the hieadings of
the case. and disclaiming a Judicial know
ledge OF facts and events public and no.
,orious. as to have become a part of the
History OF our Country. bur also itself mifi .
eating, $50 as to operate in favor OF the de,
PENDANT .i9hn Peck.) the already miiSated
pleading OF the parties, by affecting. (infer
ala, } to consider that as done by the '' SUI
preme sovereign power Of the state" VT
Georgia, which, in truth was only the act
of it's inifed and corraht legislature !: We
have seen that court excuse purchaser from
taking notice. at his peril, not OF a {" dis
tant glimpse or g'imNncring of a fraud. !"
which might create small degree of suspi-
cion.--not of o matter barely Competent :" to
put party upon an enquiry, "---uot of
a slight hitcsinS place, merely suffice Mt 70
- hang doub, upon" respecting the fair
ness of the title bur we have seen il alb
solve him. from the knowledge Of a blaze of
circumstances and badges of fraud. intrin-
sic and extraneous, strong enough to make
an eagle blench, and to Danish from the
verge of a court of Justice. any man in A
merica. except the well trained syntagonist
of the redoubtable JOHN Peck. +" one of the
principal owners of,land, under the Geor
gia act of ? Jan 1885,: And to crown the
whole, we have seen that court become a
firoseiyte. to the doctrine Of the omnipotence
OF a state legislature. in case of unparral-'
telied atrocity that very Court, which has,
heretofore, only been restrained, BY sal,,-
tary amendment to the constitution, from adj
Judging the States themselves to be mere
corf orafions,i
When such decisions and principles of de-
cision are adopted by this high tribunal ::
,,la Of
decision as have endeavored TO detail are
utterly overlooked and disregarded,-
we forbear exclaimng. with the immortal
Soksfeare, that where the Just powers of
the Court g. do not extend, thither they dart
them" ? What the object and motives of the
Court may have been Ipresume not to say !:
Let those who have traced the conduct of
that tribunal. from the beginning, and seen
itbecome great Political body in our Coun-
try, equally irresponsible to the people. and
disposed 10 embarrass every REPUBLICAN adj
ministraton, answer the question.
True to the watch word Of the Supreme
court, the renowned Mr.. Peck has affected to
consideri in his manifesto. that that court has
decided "all the points in favor of the Geor
ga grants" Ca including that of the vail
dity OF the act of 1875 as relative to the orr
gi'laI parties. it is true, as / have already
ooatended, that the court, in the wide range
much Colour tor this idea: but it is equally
true, that they had not only. before, dis
Claimed, in the same opinion, an intention
OF intermeddling with this point, on the
ground of its leading to indecent disclosures,
but that also, in winding up its opinion, the
court seems tohaVe conjfnedjt, o The ground
or being purchase for valuable conside
ration. without notice (6). am therefore
for permitting that court the llberty\to COR
rect this e:ctraj ndiciai error. hereafter, if
ever the state of Georgia, or the u. States,
or those who claim under them, shall be du-
iy conventecl before it, with liberty TO con
test the point in question by counsel, and
20 exhibit to the court. (ih the hieadings,
II you please,) the masculine and gigantic
facts OF this case. instead of that stpnted and
9suarfsh statement, which Mr. Peck ar :.
his associate, have been pleased to exhi
bit.
This decision, therefore; however excep
tionabe s. extraordinary it is, in most of it's
aspects, is not, u Mr.. Peck, IN as cIinch
Ang and conclusive as you affect 10 consider
1t. 1t is only an authority in q case as strong
and no stronger than itself; and the Su
Preme Court may yet explain or retract, an
}mprovident and ertrajudiciQS dictu0i,
which occurred in the wide range taken in
delivering its opinion.
Viewing the act of January 17e5 as "a
coUETack am fdr from thinking that its
coSn'zance does not properly appertain to
the Judiciary department. / think this as
well in relation to anuulling it, as enforcing
1t: In the last idea. am supported BY the Opt
mon or the Supreme court but that tribu-
nal has presented this anomaly TO The Judi
CIai world that not only the same court
winch en}orees contracts, is incompetent to
72aeafe them! but also that no foEver in the
government is competent to the latter finc
top The enforcement and vacating of
contacts, properly belongs to he judiciary,
and where ITS means are competent to en-
force its. Judgments, and no aid of HE ie--
gIsiatureis necessary, the power of that bo~
dy is final and conclusive. This criterion,
perhaps. pFrperly limits Gin general) the
boundaries of judicial power bur there may
be Interior cases, in which the courts may
be properly CALF d to decide. and the aid of
the legislature be yet necessary, to carry
Aihe decisions Into execution. These cases,
N'yould seem, are highly, congeniai to our
climate. and are 5f rapid Il gigantic growth
In our country. 1t is to be feared that the
love of power DgY, in some instances have
induced the judiciafyto invade the province
OF the other departments, and to act upon
subjects not of Judicial nature In such
eases. lhumbly conceive the Legislature has
the same discretion to pause. and refuse its
aid, as in the case Of treaties. In any o.
sher point of view the legislature would be-
come entirely subordinate to the judiciary.
In all just and honest cases Of the above Jles-
orintiou the aid IF the leHiIst,4rf will he