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

i ihOeUfr, prove iliu ~ ITO tgnus h@
an under any law, lhft law 40
fohiin0onal, 0r hc fiilslo prove the
legl obligation of lhe Sihte 10 pay
lhmonds, unless be- con Prove llir
= n,olifou' proposition, that nn unc0fi'
q s.ialunnl enactment which The con'
dinion itself pronoupces void H.
no,flhclc,s, law of the land, aud
I legIly binding upon The pooplcl--
p lIn thll ho does hold this luon.Ifous
pfooshion 10 be- true, ! think, will
4. clcdy nppearin thc sequel
lie anti.bond parry have never
lai much stress, upon the fact that
= aboriginal charter was not publish
ed,ccolding to the requirements Of
demonstration; for although IN IN.
viriblc Argument may be dawn
lroi that fact, to prove the State not
liplc for the bonds, provided they
la received their existence under
tb& law, yet as they did not, and we
have ample ground TO occupy with
out It We have waived that position.
wouldnot, now, offer IA single re-
mark upN that point, were 1t not for
Ihe astounding doctrine, in reference
10 II, contahed in the quotation above
made. "lht question Of publication"
ne says, SIS question of evidence
winch must necessarily be decided
py the Legislature and this decis.
ion when made is final and decisive
against all the worldw The Legis-
lature, then; by its act, settles a
constitutional question! The courts,
the people, all the world, are estop-
ed by tlie fact that the Legislature
have passed law, from an enquiry
whether Nhey passed il in conformity
wlthrequRements Of the constitution!
The fact NAT they have passed it,
decides the constitutional question
against all Me worldM! thought
we had Courts who had a right to
decide on questions of constitutional
law! | thought the people had
right to inquire--to determine such
questions, and to repeal, an unconsti.
tutloral enactment, solely on the
ground Of its unconstitutionality.-
Not so, if Mr.. Yerger's doctrine be
true. Let us hear no more about the
States liability for the Union bonds,
being a "Judicial question" The
question is already decided, by the
act itself, and that decision is "Final
and decisive against the wonLpl!!"-
How much is it 10 be regretted, that
the trainers of the Constitution had
not understood this? They never
would have exposed their ignorance
by adopting the conclusion of the
irst article of the Constitution. de-
claring that all laws passed contrary
to the provisions of said Constitution,
shall be void. Had Mr.. Yerger been
here to enlighten the people, they
never would have formed a constitu-
ton, as it would have been utterly
useless. This new discovery of Mr..
Yerger, if true, makes the Legisla-
ture, an absolute despotism.
Mr.. Yerger seems to be fully
aware, that the question, whether
the bonds were issued and the loan
obtained on them Constituionally,
must, if investigated, be decided
against him: He therefore labours,
throughout to prove, that if the law
should be unconsttu tional, yet the |
State is legally bound by it! No |
person, | presume, except himself,
would argue that an unconstitutional
enactment is legal enac ment, or
hat legal obligation of the State
,an arise, from an illegal act of the
Legislature. Yet strange as it may
appear, Mr.. Yerger brings forward a
number Of Judicial decisions 10 prove
The fact, which as l conceive are
wholly inapplicable to the case be-
fore us.
The first case cited, is from a de-
'ision of the supreme court of the
United States, s Peters Rep. 7es, in
which the court say, "It is univer-
al principle, that when power or Ju- (
isdiction is delegated to any public
'fficer, or tribunal, over subject
natter, ard its exercise is confined {
D his, or their discretion, the acts so ;
one are binding as to the subject [
natter. The only question that can I
rise between an individual claiming |
right under the acts done, and the g
ublic, or any person denying its va /
diiy, are power in the officer, and +