Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1851-11-29
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
From a Subscriber to the National ntelhgencer
ofthirty years standing.

From q Su0Scrt0er 10 inc N0ssoss"s As'e"'Scsec
ofthirty gears standing.
Messrs. EprroRs: | have read in your paper of
this morning the opinion Of Judge CURTIS, upon the
point raised in the case of United States Us. Norris
il the District Court of Massachusetts. If any
thing could surprise me, in these days of progress
il would be 70 find lawyer, Of respectable learning
and Abilities maintaining, as general proposition,
that in every trial of crime the jury are the
judges Exclusively Of the law as well as Of the
fact' &C. Yet il seems this question was "pressed
upon the attention of the Court with great earnest
ness and power Of language" and his Honor
thought il necessary to deliver his opinion seriam,
upon it. The counsel for the defendant claimed
that the jury " have not only the poCcr but the
right to decide the law; that though the Court may
give its opinion respecting any matter OF law In
volved in the issue, yet the jury may and should
allow to that opinion only Just such height as they
may think ii deserpes," &c. This is placing what
some Of our State constitutions and the acts Of
Congress call the Correction Of the Court upon
the same footing with the arguments Of counsel,
and estimating # by the force Of its reasoning. with
out regarding it authority Such doctrine, if sus-
tanned by the country, would soon bring us under
the jurisdiction Of Judge Lynch and judicial tri-
bunals might be thrown away as old trumpery, and
vigilance committees" substituted.
admit that, under our present system, jury,
whenever they render ageneral verdict have posccr
to decide the law and the facts; but deny that
they have any nrighf' 10 disregdrd' the dr.
rection Of the Court it does not agree with their
own convictions" The old common law rule has
never been abrogated, andi is still in force. The
Court GnsUer to questions Of law, and the jury
axs,0er TO questions Of fact" Thus each branch
has its peculiar province. They work together
to common end-the establishment of Justice
with harmony and without conflict or usurpation.
In every verdict it is supposed that the jury are
directed" in matter Of law by the Court, and find
accordingly. If they /" disregard" the opinion thus
given to them authority, it is ground for award
ing new trial in civil case; and in criminal
case it would be gross misconduct and exceedingly
unsafe; for if they set at naught the direction Of
the Court" to acquit the guilty, they may by the
same process condemn the innocent.
But 1 do not wish to occupy your paper in dis
cussing this point think the argument Of Judge
Curtis conclusive, and am glad TO see the question
as to the respective "rights and duties of courts
and juries receive so decided quietus.
The matter, however, in the case of Morris,
which intended particularly to ask your attention
TO, is the distinct proposition stated by the counsel
for the defendant That if any, Of the Jury
"conscientiously believe the act of $50, commonly
called the Fugitive Na0e dct,' to be uNcoNsTrrU-
TIoNAL, they sOere bound by their oaths TO dsre-
gard any direction TO the contrary which the Court
might glue Them This is very ominous and
Alarming doctrine just now, and it is fortunate that
: has been SO promptly and ably repudiated. II is
lme, however. that appeals to the higher law"
tested by conscience, should be dscountenanced.
hey lead to INSTRUMENTATION and to mischief.
here is no law binding upon our political and So
al conduct paramount to act Of Congress, passed
gularly, according 10 the forms Of the constitution,
dUithin the range fits gfGnted posoers. In
ese particulars the Supreme Court Of the United
ates has supervisory examining function, and
ny decide, IN any it is adjudicatiDg, whether
yisla!on has transcribed or violated the written
arter; but there is no authority any where else,
ort Of the /" ultima ratio,'' that can nullfy law
the land. This matter ought to be better under
ood. In this country the Legislature (including
1.-TWO houses of Congress and the President) is
9reme. No court can annul its constitutional
actment. 1t is as omnipotent as an act of Par
lnent, which Sir William Blackstone says " is
tlhighest authority upon earth,'' " and cannot be
aired, dispensed with, suspended, or repealed, but
iIhe same forms and by the same authority of
Hiament; for tits maxim in law that it requires
ttsame strength to dissolve as to create an obga-
IT," Sir Matthew Hale declares cit (the. Par
li,ent) is the highest and greatest court over
wrh none other can have jurisdiction
PINE writers have stated that acts of Parlia-
nj contrary to reason are void" On this point
thearned Commentator remarks: If Parliament
wpositively enact thing TO be done which is
unsonable, know of no po,cer, in the ordinary
fol- of the Constitution, that is vested with au-
THY to control it; and the examples usually
alld in support Of this sense Of the rule do none
Of I'm prove that when the main object Of a statute
is reasonable the judges have power to reject it;
toT1t Uere to set the judicial power above the
Levature, tchich tcould be subuersiUe of all
gotmenf,'' &c.
IN this question Prof. CHRISTIAN has also
obed: g If an act Of Parliament is clearly and
uneyocally expressed, conceive it is neither
voit its direct nor collateral consequences, hoso-
ere,surd or unreasonable 1t may appear. II
the lression will admit of doubt il will not be
pressed that that construction can be agreeable
tothtention Of the Legislature the consequences
olrh are unreasonable; but when the signif-
ciiof the statute is manifest, no authority less
tfhiat Of Parliament can restrain its operation
p is the theory in England; as to.the pfac-
fitdchallenge the production Of single instance
whlhe judges have ventured to declare statute
vi will also assert that even the High Court
of4ncery has never been allowed to- explain or
Iteret written law except by its very letter.
J MT be construed aer visceribus sssis."
III doctrine as to the judicial power is the
snJ in this country, except as extended, modi-
eSAnd defined by the second section Of the third
rye of the Constitution, to which beg leave to
Tv,c ~kcI