The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1847-10-23

limiting it in its action. But human nature or
rather Legislative nature, was too we'll known
to be left unrestricted in the exercise OF power.
Constitutional limits were thrown around
the action Of the Legislative body. Il remain
ed a question Of debate then, who should de-
eide when the Legislature transactions the linn
its. II it should be left for this body to de-
eide on the cOnstitutionality Of its " acts,
there would be no use Of limiting it in the ex-
ercise Of power through a Constitution. For
being removable to no higher power, it would
break over the limits, just as soon as it would
disregard individual rights without C%onstitu-
tional limits. 1t was evident that this power
Of deciding wherethe Legislature transcribed
its limits should be lodged IN some other dis
~tinctive department. II was a ccordingly lodg-
ed in the Supreme Court.
This Court was given the power 70 render
any law Of the Legislature null and void, that
be seen that this Court must be independent or
1t cannot serve the purposes Of its creation. In
the present Case-the Legislature Of this State
/ passed a law-the Supreme Court says the
! Legislature exceeded its constitutional limits,
J An appeal is made TO the people through an
election, whether the Legislature did exceed its
constitutional limits,or according to the genera
expression "whether Sharkey's opinion was in
/, %error?n Assoon as this done,is it not plain that
Q the Court is no longer independent-that its
: decisions are controlled by the people! that
: the majority can obtain what decisions they
i please, however oppressive it might be to the
minority? The whole object Of restricting
e the action Of the Legislature-and instituting
q this Court to keep this Legislature within its
limits, was to protect the rights Of the mlnori-
9 ity. When the decisions of this court are toni
a trolled by the majority, much less aifording d
d protection, it can be used as an instrument Of
.e oppression, What is the use Of constitutions
ii limits upon the action Of the Legislature? Fol
when the majority had a %favorite object TO &C.
1t complish-however much it might initiate
le against the most sacred rights Of the minority
they could elect members to the Legislature
IL SVuAd pass q ANW ' Dhtb bAVhA-hAVA VApSi
in Judges to the Supreme Court, who would de-
re eide that law constitutional and have the means
Of accomplishing the most diabolical purposes
~ Willing tools can always be found who will
submit to be placed upon the Supreme Bench tc
h decide according 10 the wish Of the majority
IL In France the Legislative body is the sol,
Judge Of the Constitutionaljty Of its W acts
ry In England the Legislative body is not onl,
Judge Of the ConstitutiOnality Of its acts
he but can modify and change the Constitutions
Or Every one will admit at once that in either o
these cases there is virtually no constitution
Why? Because in the first, there is nothing
8. topgcvent the legislative body from leaping the
barriers and throwing off all Constitutional re-
strietion. In the latter the Legislative bod
can change the Constitution as often as it cal
he make a law; electing Judges to the Suprem
n Bench who will decide according to the wis
OF of the majority, is putting our Constitution on
n par with that Of England and France.
ty When the system Of electing Judges wa
ue first discussed beforeits adoption, it was argue
u on the part Of itsl advocates, that the s'm,
ne tue Of the people'' would be a sufficient safe
at guardIagainst the abuse to which il could be pu
tn And the idea that any candidate for the Su
ST. preme Bench would ever run on a politics
question, or that the people should ever max
ITS use Of .this prerogative Of electing Judges ia
los political purposes, was sneered at and though
too monstrous and absurd even for suppositior
1t was said that the people would always PROF
on erly appreciate the value and Importance {
he this Court, and would pusmen upon the Benc
mis- for their integrity Of heart and legal affair
10; ments alone, and not political sentiment or Il
We gal opinion.
nd To those who intend to vote for Judge Wi
he kinson, ! would say that I do not object I
ill your voting for him-but | do object to n
~ "reason Why'' you vote for him. This yer
vi, "reasoa pAy'' saps the foundation Of your libeI
nd ties and renders insecure your own indiyidut
,O- rights. You are among the majority who wis
'rd to accomplish the purpose Swallowed forth !
cir tho Tory bilI-the Supreme Court stops 20
,e- and tells you that Won are violating the Cor
M ~stitution and ~trampliDg upon individual rights
b. You will not submit, You think yoursc
;u- right and bring out a candidate Of your ow
Of political stripe. One who thinks the Tor
tut Bill within the range Of the Constitution, an
lat YOU will vote for him because he will decid
he that you are right, and will let you a%ccOmplis
or- your purpose. Nov Do you NOT see that Q
the suppOsitiOn that you are wrOngs that II
Sc Tory Bill is unconstitutional, and does tran
] pie upon individual rights, that it would be th
on same way-that you could accomplish YOU
he purpose in the same way. Now tell me und'
on this state 0 Fittings what would be your secur
Drs " for the continued enjoyment Of your ow
ng individual rights? How long before you wi
inc be placed in the minority and your rights WI
cir be trampIed by an unscruPulous majority?
MF aHNFFt. n... EHH"E3t nF..a.n