Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-10-08
GARRETT GiIBFEr, Esq.
NOW sTlND.S me CASE:


the decisions Of the Supreme Court
The President Of the United States acts III two capa
cities lnasmuch all laws must be presented,o MN
for opprora before they can take effect and they can
not, Except under certain crcumstances) TAKE enee
wi,hou, his approval he is made part or branch OF
the law.making power ami the administration Of al
laws when they are made, is committed to nun. he
therefore acts LrgiSnire and IN an Erceuu6e capa
CITY Out of this double character ar:srs, th'nk Tue
duty Of looking at the Constitution IN TWO manners
somewhat different. In his legislative capacity, he
should bring TO It's Interpretation an honest mInd; ou,
It'll il should be his mind and not the minds oil
others am aware that cases may be put, whch WIZ
REQUIRE some modification OF tins doctrine bnl 'iihk
they seldom never occur. HIS NINA
should be enlightened by the rcasonings OF others, by
The decisions IF YOU please of the courts and, above
ALL by the genuine hight of experience. Still his de-
csicn upon the conformity non.coniorml'y of par
ticuar act TO the provisions OF the Constitution must
be his own decson sustained by the convictions Of his
conscience.
But not in this manner is he Judge Of law which
has already been enacted, and which lie Is called TO
administer or execute. lie is not then required, or
even allowed, to bring il 10 the test of his individual
opinions of its consttutonaty; and for tins PLAIN rea
son. that he is not constituted the interpreter OF law
after il has become such. When act has become a
law the court interpret it, and when interpret
ed j, mast be administered nv the Executive accord
ing TO that ,erpretation whether he thinks II correct
or not.
lnasmuch as Mr. Tyler acted in his legislative cha.
racter in passing upon the bulls recently presented 10
hun, seems clear to that he was bound by ms ON
cial oath to test all their pro visions by his own sense
of their conformity to the Constitution, without any re-
uard 10 any other authority The decisions OF Inc gu
preme Court on the co.stlutionalty OF former s'h-
lar institution winch had ceased TO exist, so' se'''
To enlighten him, but ought not TO cohtfoi Mn
But as this is point, in regard TO "hlch' hue" =
norance appears TO prevail, will trespass upon your
readers patience so far TO state briefly whal 'e co"
has actually decided and the grounds OF that aecs'on
from which, will appear plan that Tue cou', az
claims no authority for its decisions, rs aPP''cuue y
The Len Stature TO ne enactmens OF similar charac
ter. >.
The Constitution gives Congress authority TO pass
MI laws Unnecessary and proper, 10 carry INTO ensct
all the specially delegated pnwers ana only upon
Tho around that United Staes Bank IS both neces
sary anil proper, that its charter by Government can
be justified When The question Of the constitution
alty of the late United States Bank was tired IN the
case OF Nc uiioch vs.. Tie Sate cf .hryand (lth vol
Wheaton ReporisO the court decided that the act,
incorporating that institution, was proper or arpro'
pirate one fo- the purpose of accomplishing It's pro-
essed objects, which such were specially dele
rated to the care Of Congress- and was TO be deemed
~ them 50 far necessary as TO dehar them from de-
c,dng that II was nat necessary. Therefore The law
was constitutional But the question Of the d'Sref OF
It's necessity they expressly say, IS matter Tor lrssa
tive discretion rot judicial gaon. From tins de-
cson il is very obvious that, according 10 It's doctT'ne
the necessity Of bank, is for the consideration OF The
law making power, including the President, and they
must always decide that point, lt would serve good
purpose if the substance Of that case, embracing the
argument of COUNSEL and the opinion Of the court
could be published. Il would afford great facility IN
enabling the people TO understand the sutlect)
Bat notwithstanding the Supreme Court has moi
decided upon the real necessity Of Bank, yet having
d, cGcd upon the consltulionaly Of one on groLnds
that Imply its necessity, a certain scnsc there IS at
"a. 40 ell NJ. %
minds an impression that The President, III passing
upon new act, is Gound hy their decision. For ili.
benefit Of such persons, 1t may be well 10 SHOW that
their argument will prove too much, and 60 Too Tar
The decisions of the Supreme Court are certainly
no more binding on The President, than on the other
branches Of the law making power; and Of course u
he Louad By them 10 approve an act then Congress
is equally L0uad 10 pass IL and i! tiie court b. sus-
tanning the con>ti:ut:onG,y Of Bank, have decided
that Bank necessary the usual Sense oi that word,
meaning indispensable, II has just As nuch imposed
upon Congress the Obligation ii seeing that We have
Bank and that a bill incorporating one when an old
charter is about expire, shall h scnsonab!y press mt
ed TO the President Tor approval as u has put HIN I'M
der obligation TO approve 1t, when presented u snch
he the state of the case every actincorporang Bank,
ought TO lee in force during s SPECIFIED period, ana ~
neu one &c incorporated. Had Mr.. Biddc such an
appendagr 10 his charter, can hardly CONJECTURE
what he NIGH; not have made OF u!
Blu, tins IS no, tie end Of the absurdy II, when
the Supreme Count deem certain means provided Tor
ty far necessary 10 authorize them 10 sus-
tain the cons,u,onali,y Of TINT act those means nFe
ever after TO be deemed indispensable and not To be sup
piled ~ any substitute, how Is legislation eyer TO Keep
pace with improvements: According 10 this doctrine,
what necessary IS always necessary; and what
has once been enacted mus; continGc IN ioTce do
not know hat the same mode Of reasoning viii require
Congress provide full suits Of sails for all our steam
rga,cs SHOULD We have any, because they have
been atcfsSary in the early ages Of the Republic.
The dta, therefore, that IN passing upon the late
acts, the President bound 10y any authority Of de.
cisors OF the Supreme Court, must, think 81 ADAM
doRcd.
In my own uGgmcnt a series Of Legislative prcce.
dents is entitled authority 10 much greater weight
than decisions of the Court, cases OF constitutional
doubt with the President, because they constitute 4
course OF policy. When the legislature have passed
aggressive enac.men,s in regard to SUBJECT That has
been approved and acauisccd in by the people, sue!
enac,mcnts mast he deemed in agreement Yh the
Constitutions Just course Of regimen or occupation
under winch individual IS contented and happy
must he deemed TO agree with his constitution. Such
preccdens constitute n course Of policy, which, wher
sacccssu carries great weight; whereas judicial Gec
sian3 rot unreGncntly cOniravcne, and even change
course Of legislative policy. ilu, kn@ much weight
The legislative precedems OF charering two U. States
Banks should have inducing the President 10 approve
new one Ike those, | shall cndcayor to show in the
next number.
mere Is one argument ol winch HoNtNtI VIZ seluoii
hear decucible directly from the Constitution, which
saeEis 10 me entitled weight than is actually
allowed to III and wnh may well make conscientious
public hesitate 10 vote for, approve, ACT in
cooperating bank to bc cItmp fro SUITE tatGtoR. The
argument is this: the Constitution rcsrans the States
lst, from laying "any impns,s duties imports OF
eypoits except what shall be absolutely necessary fu
cacculing IT'S inspection laws, and ~, from laying
"any duy uf tonnage. These, believe, constitute
the only restriction in that instrument upon The power
Of tho States TO tax The Constitution further states
that !he powers not delegated 10 the u S. by the Con
s,i,ution prohibited by il to the States, are resev
cd 10 the States respectively, or TO tie people. Now
among the things which the States are restrained from
taxing banking capital and banking f,anchise, employ
ana exercised within their nrsdciIon certainly are
no, enumerated, whilst other things are; and every
power not delegated 10 The u. S, or prohibited TO t!e
sa,cs, is retained - The Sta,cs. lma3much, then, As
ls power of,aring sch property is not prohibited 10
the States, the interference is certainly strong that
they lrgnatey retain taad ought to be allowed 10
exercise it, Nor is the argument al all weakened by
saying that the L. S, having created the institution
G. L.. q