Weekly miners' express. (DuBuque, Iowa) 184?-1849, 1848-11-21


writ OF error in appeal is barred by linn
ltation, every county court or Justice Of
the Peace in this Union may exercise the
same right from which our own Judge
ments or process wuold not be exempted"
1t is true that from judgment Of in
terror judicial tribunals in some manner
an appea! can be taken to a superior
within lmited tine, but not so from the
decisions Of the Supreme Judicial power,
of the land. Thei decisions are final,
and their judgments import absolute and
unquestlonab!e verify; and so it is with
the sovereign Legislative power in all
their decision and Acts upon .sriehiful SUBJ
jects Of Legislation" and that the inves-
LEGATION into the facts upon the ascertain
ment Of which, The Legislature reserved
the right Of repeal, is a rightful subject
of Legislation, is clear from the fact that
the corporators have made it so by thfir
acceptance Of the Charter with such a
right reserved.
Ia the case Of Crease VS.. Babcock, esd
Pick, $40. the Court say, eff default
'has been committed, then by the express
'''erms Of the compact, they, 1.-THE Legis-
Iature] have the right to exercise the
power. They have exercised it, and
therefore by the courtesy and confidence
which is due from one department Of the
Government to another, we are bound to
presue that The contingency upon which
the right to exercise it depended has nap
pened: Nor is the objection that the
Legislature had no powers to enquire in
Ia The contingency valid. If any man or
body OF men is invested with power 10 do
certain acts upon the occurrence Of
certain event, when the event happens,
they have right to perform the act
But we do not believe that the enquiry
INTO the affairs Of a corporation with a
vic" to contuance or discontihuance
of it is a judicial act.''
Had the Defendants in error travcrs-
ed the rejoinder and formed an issue to
the jury, the trial would have directly
resulted in an investigation into the evil
dence before the committees and the
two Houses Of the Legislative Assem-
ply, and If such an investigation should
have been permitted it would follow, that
the motcns Of the members would have
come under the review Of the court and
jury; and if this could be done in this case
the same practice as to other acts Of the
Legislature might prevail this would OK
tend the jurisdiction Of the courts. From
expornding the law as they find it, to
decisions of what the law should be. is
doctrine repudiatcd by all enlightened
courts except in cases Of clear conflict
| between the constitution and LeuisIa
tive acts, when it is made the duty Of the
judicial department Of the Government
TO lntcrpose and preserve the integrity
Of that instrument which is above the
reach of Legislative interference.
In the case Of Fletcher vs.. Peck, 6
Cranch, Rep. (2d Cond, 313) Chief JUS
tlce Marshall in delivering the opinion of
the court says, "That it may we'll be
"doubtcd how far the validity Of law
"depends upon the motions Of its trainers,
and how far the particular inducements
operating on members Of the supreme
sovereign power Of State to the (orma-
ton of contract by that power are OK
amnab!e in court Of Justice. If the
principle be conceded that an act Of the
supreme sovereign power might be de-
ca"cd null by court in consequence Of
the means which procured it, still there
would be much difficulty in saying to
what extent those means must be applied
to produce this cflect.''
1t is argued for the Plaintiff in error,
that the Legislature have pronounced
their own contract rescnded and annull-
ed the same; and this is urged as an OBJ
jeclon TO the validity Of the act Of re-
peal.
However oppressive it may appear for
party TO contract to reserve the right
OF resembling the same at pleasure, or
upon the occurrence Of events Of the cx-
Istence Of which he is to be the Judge,
yet that party has a right to make such
reservation, will not be questioned
The members of the Legislature are the
agents Of the public, and are presumed
to have no personal interests to serve,
other than what pertains to their consti-
tuents in common with themselves. They
act in fiduciary capacity and are not
amcnable to the odium attached to a par
ty who reserve the ri yht Of being Judge
IN his own case.
The Judgmen, Of the District Court is
affirmed
S. c. HASTINGS,
Chief TUcj;.e