Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1840-1842, 1841-08-19

ION de!ivereu on any question in the same unquaDi
hed Language ~ Is there employed. 1t IS in theS'
remarkable words:
"AfIer the most mature elaboration, ii is the una,
nimou, and decided opinion of this Court, that the
act to incorporate a Bank OF the United States i
a law made IN pursuance OF the provisions OF IN,
Constitution, and isl porto the supreme law o
the land"
twas not only the unanimous, but decided OPT
mon, that Is TO say, there is not a shadow of doub
upon the mind OF any member Of the court; on,
yeti am TO be told that this Is an open question, no
Obligatory on any body that has sworn to supper
the Consttution; that each and every officer OF the
Government is at liberty TO act upon his own un
derstandlnS Of this constitutional question. Sir, !
IS no longer a question OF constitutional power, tina
IS settled. IL Is n political question, purely political
Tor the purpose Of effccung political objects. A
proof OF this, the same party who now profess e
hold this as dangerous exercise of unconStitutiona
power, were the men who strcnuously advocate
the election Of MIR Crawford in 1924, (having othep
political objects then to accomplish knowing hi
convictions not only Of the utility Of such an insli
tuition, but Of it's absolute necessity TO the fcal op,
eratlons OF the Government; and that. too, when, d
he had been elected, IL would have made him the
President IN 1882, when the bank bill was vetoed
by Gen. jackson, provided he had succeeded 10 d
second term.
Suppose two men were tn enter into partnership
with written articles Of agreement as to the respec.
tive powers TO be exercised by each, and il was
therein stipulated that, II they could not Al any e.
NutS tnle agree upon the CONSTRUCTION 10 I've gtveT
to those articles, they would refer il TO the decision
OF n mutual friend, designated in the articles, and
each should take an oath to support and stand hy
the agreement thus entered Into. After a lapse o
years, one partner claims the right TO do what The
other denies. and the case is referred TO the friend,
who, upon mature deliberation, gives it as his de-
cided opinion that the right claimed to be exercised
Is granted 10y the agreement. Would not the refI.
sal OF the objecIHg partner TO HcquieSce in the
decision thus rendered bc a violation of the
] - rNnaFf .nsaraN into and oltTl h.. LaA .uuA.,
to support II so, then the case is here presented,
for 1t is a case precisely analogous 10 that | am now
! discussing.
How is 1t in your judicial tribunals A Judge
makes n decision IN his own court, a bill Of cxcep.
tons is hled, the case Is carried to the appellate court
The decIsion is reversed; the case comes back to the
court below. The judge may entertain his opin-
ions as a private citizen, and express them freely;
but the moment lac takes his seat upon the bench IN
his official character, his right 10 Judge of that adiu
decision of the higher court, whatever his individual
opinion may be. So II 10 here; a President msy,
in his individual character, think as he chooses; hut
the moment no is called upon m his official chlrlc-
ter, to set as President, he assumes a new character,
and is bound to Icquiesce in the decisions of the con.
sltutcd tribunals OF he country. His character oil
individual IS merged IN that Of Chief Magistrate, and
his power 10 JuGse ceases with his character as cIu-
zen.
Does the Constitution any where say he shall We.
to 1t he thinks It UNCONSTITUTIONAL No. Il SAYS
EVERY bill which shat. have passed The House oil
Representatives and the Senate, snail, before j, be-
comes law, be presented TO the President Of the
United States; II he approve, he shall sign it, but, II
not, he shall return II, with his objections, &c.'
And il cannot be supposed that the Constitution in
tended 10 conhde more IN the Judgment of q sin
gle individual as to the constitutional power, than
in the united wisdom Of Congress, tackei by the
decision OF the Court established for the purpose.
II he is not Oourd to sign what he believes 10 be
nm unconstitutional .VG NElv Il he hound n av-arrta
what he believes to be an unconstitutional law ?
.7Td yet that is 50. Whenever a bill shaI. pass both
Houses, and receives his veto, Is returned and pass.
ed by two-thlrds, he IS then bound 10 execute the
law, let his opIniOnS Of its cOnSttuuOnaIiY ue what
they may. Here, then, are two cases in which he
IS bound 10 surrender his own opinions, as 10 tho
powers granted by the Constitution, TO the other
departments Ofthe Government: the one when two
thirds OF Congress shall decide upon a bill return
ca with his objections, and the other WHEN the Su-
pEeme Cour. 0t the United States shaI. have Gccid-
ed on the power.
In conncxion with this branch Of my argument: in
relation to the Supreme Court OF the United States,
let me Snow what was The decision OF the Legis'a-
ture Of my own State in 1910, before the h1lr split
tiers and nu...hCGS came INTO iashIOn-n the good old
days Of common sense and common reason.
On the ih VI December, 1909, Gov. Tyler Che
father Of the PrIsitCrD communicated mes. 1ge @
the Legislature fcom which The following ea.,-cg is
taxa:
a proposition from tie Safe Of Pennsylvania is
herewith submitted, with Gov. SdydeIS .c,G. ac-
com auylug the same, IN which Is suggested the
propHeiy Of a~mead.Cg he Constitution a. the JUr.
ted States 80 as 10 prevent collisions between the
Government; OF the Union and The Stale Govern
On the 18th December, thai part OF Gov. Tvrer.
message was referred to q committee, Of which q. e
OF my predecessors oithe democratic purity, the Min.
IsIer 10 England, tAlr. SlCYensoH,) was a member.
On the llIh January, 1910, The chairman Of the
committee, Mr.. Peyton, reported and from tina!
report | take the following extract:
"Ihe commitie 10 whom was referred the CON.
munlcation Of the letter OF the Governor Of Pennsyl.
yania, covering certain resolutions # he LegisI. lure
OF that ) safe, proposing an amendment Of the Con.
sIltutIan Of the United States, by the appointment
Of an impartial tribunal to decide dIspltes between
the State and Federal judiciary, have had the same
under their consideration, and are ofihe opinion that
a tribuna' Is already provided by tie Constitution
OF the United States, to wit, the Supreme Court
more emInenl.y qualified from their habits aGdduties
from the mo1e Of their selection, and from The te
nu5e OF their Offices, to decide tue disputes ai5re.afd
in an enlightened and impartial manner, than any
other tribunal which could be created. The mem.
berso OF the Supreme Court are selected from hose Of
United States who are mort celebrated for virtue
and legal learning, and not al the will Of n sin,re
individual, bat by the concurrent " shes Of the Pre-
s.iCn; and the Senate u tn United States. Thew
viii, therefore, haTa NJ .ocG prejudlCes and partial
tiles. The duties ,hCy have to perform lead them
acIuaIntlnGs with the jurisdiction Of the Fc.
eral and State courts, together add with the auui.
Taule symmetry Of our Government. The tenure
OF their offices enables them 20 pronounce the sound
end cgrrec, opinions they may have formed, " llhout
lear, favor Or par.ailiy."
The report, which IS TOO long TO insert, concludes
with this resolution:
"Re5olusd. TIN. the Legislature Of this S,o,e do
Gisauproyg Of Inc amendment u the Constitution Of
the United States rs proposed by The Lcgis. ture Of
Pennsylvania"
This report and resolutions were ordered 10 be
referred 10 4 Of the Whole House. on
the state Of the Commonwealth, and on The 23I Of
January, the chairman ofihe committee, the rresc1,
judge Stanard, reported them to the House without
amendment.
"Ard the question being put on agreeing 10 the
said preamble and resolutions, they wsro aEreed 10
unanimously.
"Ordsrsj, That the clerk carry the said prc7nb.,
resolutions to tho Senate, and desire their con.
currcucC."
On the 2ilh January they were referred to a
committee Of the Senate, and on the 26th January
to the Senate without amendment. And
the question being put ihCreupon, the same
agreed 10 unanimously
SO much for tho powers Ofihc Supreme Court.
now, SIR, 10 show you that, ufcr the decision Of
The supreme Court AZ 10 tho constitutional power.
{ was regarded in Virginia as a settled and adjuJg-
co question, the Legislature Df that State. Of the
session oi l~5lJ-2O, pas Cd a law for the punish.
neni oil any pCrsOn who should "iDrgc any note or
bill Of the Bank Oilhg UU0teI States, or any o.hrr
10y the Government " me United States, or gy
the Government! Vt any State, Territory, or DIS.
lrct thereof"
Here, then, Is not ou.v the contu.utiona-i,v Of.
The late bank recognized, bot Ut any bank That.
Congrs's might there ftsr create.