Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1844-12-11


, word or a look. Thus the court is con.
, stituted the Judge of his own privileges
and the vindcator Of his own wrongs
whether real or supposed, and his jurisdic-
ton in this particular is without measure.
The offence is without specification and
without definition and though legally
viewed, it is said to refer solely TO the
lunctonary, it necessarily touches and
stimulates the individual, who finds il hard
to separate himself from The office and
station. It may thus become an offence
of opinion, Of feeling or of prejudice-an
offence which has no other legislation than
the impertectons Of human nature, blind
ed and misled by the circumstances of
the moment, notions of caprice and the
improper bias of passion; or by those
powerful, but imperceptible influences
from which the most upright and enlight-
ened nj DIS cannot be considered or trus-
ted TO DO wholly exempt. The power of
Furnishing may be extended TO degree
despoic, and, as it is extended in a Judi
cial capacity, it is irresponsible and may
therefore be used regardless OF conse.
quences. Under such state of things,
liberty and property may become preca.
rious and there is no protection against
oppression. The rights and privileges
which our Constitution has retained and
reserved to its citizens may thus be des-
politically abridged or wholly refused, and
their "remedy by due course Of law de-
MEDIC at least 'delayed," until vindica.
ted and restored by the slow process of the
proverbialy sluggish channels of iuris.
prudence. Many cases of the infringe
ment Of constitutional rights could be
conceived and enlarged upon TO illustrate
in strong relief this position, but the mere
admission Of the principle of entire and
complete power, without responsibility, to
adudcate for the time being upon those
rights and privileges will suggest them to
all lreemen who are acquainted with, aud
jealous of what Of right belongs to them as
their inheritance under our form of 60
yernment 1t is legal motto, full of
meaning and not too strong in expression,
which declares that,
Misera est ssrv.ipa, uhi lex EST yagn mt
incerta,"
And certainly in no code Of laws, can be
pointed out one more obnoxious TO this
reproach. than that Of a supposed offence
which finds It's enactment, Its tribunal and
its punishment in one and the same source.
AS we have already seen, history teaches
us that the origin of this doctrine grew
out of state of things happily unknown
and unrecognized by US. Anciently, in
England, the King presided in some of the
courts and sat himself in judgment. The
insult, as it was considered there, was adj
dressed to his Majesty in person, and was,
in the spirit of such a government, met
with prompt and often mortal punishment.
Death and forfeiture of lands and titles
were alone sufficient to atone for the Of
Tended dignity Of the throne. But as
better reason grew up among men, and
liberty was either enlarged or its charac-
ter better understood in England, this
among other seventies, passing through
various stages Of lesser cruelty and hard |
ship, became modif ed and ameliorated, |
until il found its present limit and extent.
II we're not bad argument then to insist
that in introducing such principle into
our especially free government, it needs
must receive correspondent abatement
Of those of its features which are at war
with the nature of the constitution and
laws into which it has been admitted
Surely the same principle should be allow
ed 10 hold in country which rests upon
the love, as in one which is enforced from
the fears of its people. For in this coun-
try, there is no majesty save the majesty
of the law, and the office of that majesty
is 10 guarantee to the sovereign citizen
his constitutional liberties.
II has been before admitted that there
have been in England and in this coun.
try, judicial decisions establishing in that
country and in some States in this, the
legitimacy Of the exercise of power in
cases like the one under consideration.
Either that power is derived er necesSi-
tate rel, or it is the growth Of legislation
and Judicial practice. In the last event,
as BY the circumstances OF this case it
seems to be, it can be claimed only by
virtue Of its being one Of the lineaments
Of the common law in England. In what
position do this country and this State
stand in relation TO that common law
The United States have not taken, in all
respects, the common law Of England.
So much only of its general principles
are claimed and adopted which is applica-
bic TO our situation, institutions and form
of government. Van Ness. v. Pacard, 9
Peters, l41. Nor is there any such thing
as a common law Of the United States.
The constitution and laws of the Union
prevail as the authority Of law throughout
the Union, but each independent State
may have its own common law which
may not so be considered 10 another.
LVknrs 81 al Data, - Dut...