Louisville messenger. (Louisville, Miss.) 1842-1843, 1843-08-26

person receiving ihe property b,ulfb
Illegal proceeding should be- di,ulcd
Of lhe poscs'ioni | think 40. IL
then the Legislature and Governor In
ihc issuing Of tho bonds, did lh,t
which lhcy were not authorized 10 do
--a thing not within lhc sphere of
their powers, and lurllor " Nicholas
Bddlc acquired thcsc bond. lruin.
lcntly, ~ ! have shown, II fllow,,
that the act Is not binding upon lhe
State. II was an illegal act through.
out, aud those who performed II, and
those who shared with them IN the
benefits, are the only persons bound
either legally or morally, US | shall
show in the course ortbB review.
So we see Mr.. Ycrgcr's option of
the Court, will not ala Inn, unless he
sustains the ConsiItuIionaIlty Of The
bonds. Unless he proves this, all the
opinions Of the courts that he can
parade will do him uogood. Mr..
Ycrgcr cites several other opinions to
sustain his exlraordi ary doctrine,
which are all equally Irrelevant to
the question before rs. They all go
to show that upon an appeal, when
the records of the court below, fail to
show that certain requirements Of The
law, Necessary to be performed, prior
to, or in order TO the Judgment OF the
court, the appellate court will pre-
sume, that what The law required, has
been done, What has this 10 do
with the question before US? Because
the appellate court cannot assume the
province of a court Of original Juris-
diction, and enquire into matters not
contained in the record of the court
below, in order to obtain proof as to
the validity Of its Judgment, does it
follow that there is no other court of
original Jurisdiction that can do SO,
and if proof be made of illegaIity in
the action of said court, can it do JUS
tice in the premises, and set aside, or
pefpetuaIly enjoin the case? am
no lawyer,-nothing hut plain, but
| trust unsophisticated farmer, yet |
suppose court Of Chancery could
take cognzance of the matter, and If
proof were made that the first named
court had violated the law, and given
illegal Judgment it could vacale, or
perpetually enjoin the Judgment
So, too, decree obtainedin Chance
ny, by the fraud or collision of the
party, may be impeached by an orig
inal bill in the same Court. What
good reason has Mr.. Yerger, for sup
posing, that the people are tied down
TO the technical rules prescribed for
the government ofan appellate couul
Have they not as much power over
the action of the Legislature, as a
Court Of Chancery having original
Jurisdiction, has over another court
of inferior Jurisdiction? They GER
tainly have, yea Twill call them The
High Court of Chancery, having ORR
ginal Jurisdiction of all things apper-
tanning to their government, and
where any thing has been done by
the Legislature or Governor, in vio-
Iation of their powers under the con.
'titution, they have the right, and full
power to enquire into every thing
lppertaining to such acts, and to per-
oetually enjoin the act from any OPP
Grafton upon the people Of MissisSip-
ii. The cd sec. Of the Its article of
he Constitution declares "That all
political power is inherent in the
people and all free governments are
ounded on their authority, and es-
ablished for their benefit; and there
ore, they, have at all times, an una
ienable, and indefeasiole right to
liter or abolish their form of govern
nent, in such manner as they may
hink expedient." The conclusion
o said lst article is in these words.
TO guard against transgresslons OF
he. high powers herein delegated: we
leclare that every thing in this artic-
e is excepted out the general pow
rs of government, and shall forever
eman inviolate, and that all laws
ontrary thereto, or to the following
shall be void" Those
lauSes sustain the above assumption,
nd shows conclusively that however
otent the Legislative tribunal may
e, there is still a superior tribunal
he people. A tribunal not antlc1'
ated from looking into matters, not
4 the record of an inferior tribunal.