New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-05-26

WESLEs, 1.-THE appeal in this case
presents but one question for our decision, viz: wheh
er the net of the Legislature entitled "An act pro-
vide Tor the completion OF The Enc Canal Enlargement
ara the feursee Valley and Black River Canals passed
Jy 10 1851 (chap 49, If the laws Of that year, is in
conflict with the Con stituton,
The case was submitted while the argument was in
uropress In the case Of George w Newell Auditor &c,
plsinti IN rror against the People ex rel Erasts
phelps defendants in error which involved the
ouc,on with the understanding that the argument in
that case should be regarded as applicable to this
The case Of Newell against the People also involved
another question entirely subordinate 10 the men,
toned the decision of which becomes unnecessary in
consequence o. the views entertained BY majority OF
THE Court upon the main question, end which dispose
OF both cases
As have not been able to agree with my brethren
who have united in declaring unconstitutional the law
referred TO- his proper and due to my se to state the
reasops which have led me TO dissent from them.
The complaint in this in the Supreme Court was
Upon pronissoJy note given by the defendant Mum
con, to J Watson Williams or order for SJl5, dated
Jan % 1852 payable the rrt day of February next
thereafter az the Bank Of the State OF New York. and
indorsed and transferred by Williams to the plaintiff,
Rcdrnan.
transfer OF the notc as stated in the complaint but
ayers that the plaintiff became the purchaser and owner
thereof on the 9Th osy OF February, 1882 and alter the
same due and payable IL then sets up ss oar 70
the action that the note was executed and delivered to
Williams consideration Of the sale and assignment py
him 10 the defendant of Canal Revenue Certificate Tor
I
NJ The second section Of the act before referred TO- and
for no other consideration whatever setting out the
certificate particularly. aud alleging that the act nnSons
tn,ie nal tlst gave the Controller no authority to issue
the certificate which therefore mil and void and that
the note therefore without any legal or ysnd conoer
alton support IL wherefore the Pisni uo 70 Lave
NV maintain his action against the defendant tor the recovery
thereof 49, a., ,,r, - =.
the matters therein stated did no. constitute defense
ndrment was given at the Special Term IN avor OF the
defendant the demurrer which was aira e. on sopes
to the General Term From that Judgment Oh ansce ny
the General Tenn this appeal - brought
The Judgment the Court belo~, holding the note iron
which the action was brought 10 De void was uPon the
rnnna that the s.t in question by virtue Of which the
certificate which constituted the sole consideration OF the
note was issued was in conflict with the Constitution; that
the certificate created valid claim upon the State or suy
of its revenues without peclinary Vsiue anc was
therefore incapable Of becoming by s safe or 20
the defendant valid sufficient consideration for
premise l, .;a.s
The act confeedy within the general scope on essa
tive power and mus; be held valid and operative unless
shown to be an act OF legislation wncn IS e'e
in express by pain and obvious oy tne
organic law of the Ii not pretended that The plan
orscheme for the completion OF the canals conenp,o oy
the ect in question prohibited so far from IL
one of the arguments urged against the law IS mat sucn
pan never entered The minds OF the Convention VINO formed
H. Constitution OF of the people who adopted IT, The OBJ
sections 70 the law are Of character resog IN argument
and inference The substance OF them IS that II cannot DC
cad into execution without TRANSFORMING overturniny
cs,tan nro sors of the Constitution Such ohecrons
they are sustained should be- and as 10 deea
the law as plain and express terms IN contraVen-
II has however become maxim, that statute. the OBJ:
ect and provisions OF which among the acknowledged
bowers OF LEGISLATION is TO be presumed wand ana consu-
onal unless the contrary clearly de1nsiraed dis-
cusn Of the question should therefore proceed upon sach
prcmpton and objection be regarded as holding the
a,mati, of the question and required 10 make out clear
case fee from any rational doubt FLETCHER vs. Peck,
Crapch 81, ex paIte CoiouIn So"en a. 0oi' 'iM Vs.
The People, DEMO 3sl.) ,.,..
In Fletcher VS. Peck the question was Whether statute
of the State Georgia in conflict with the Csnstution
of thai State and Chief Justice Marshall iemalss, hat
he question WI ether law be void for its repgnency %
cscv which ought seldom if ever to ba decided in the
Affirmative, ia doubtful case' And again Inc opao-
sO between the Constitution and the law should os suc
that the Judge es clear and strong conviction oil the
incOmpstibihty with esch oiher'
aIs TGbu Chief !Ss aS 70 an a, of s
IL sislsture unconstitutional case must De piesentea ia
which there can be no rational - e Sa
always favor Of the validity Of law = tns S Is csss
clearly lis A1S ~ Justice Brown correctly
remarks that for oil The purposes OF this ssoeit ts
authority be assumed IN te mrs. sS
subjects of municipal regulation. unless resfa6ed by some
positive rule the fundamental law Those her, ole who
nnt the legislative authority in controversy, ts.c upon the
selves the burden Of showing the limitation or poton
In determining whether the lasm,slng poweI hts con
fined itself within its constitutional Authority there y le
difference between the State Lesl.istuIe az the
Corgess Of the United States Inc former IS Clothed win
uuivers. legislative power excepting what - speclncaly
witbbed while the latter none but WHAT'S expressly
granted together with such as may become 20
their execution An set Of the State Legislature j 10 os
presumed valid while that of Congress Is M the st place TO
be shown TO be within the power granted IN e one case
the power inherent rnderved IN the other 1t s dele
The act the State lie oiure entitled to the benefit of
eveiy doubt while tha,o Congress must be free from evey
uncertainty or nctuaon the mind IN reference 10 its
In The consideraon Of this case therefore, propose TO
exans the several objections the consut0nay OF the
law in question they are presented upon me arsu-
ard n an, or either OF them shall be found be
npsverabe ana spch establish beyond reasonable
doubt that the statute in question ard the CONSTITUTION are
Incompatible with each other the former must yiea TO the
- Aoxt. nd ghf
quepces TO the State or TO individuals
variety of considerations conspre 70 sinons ~ against
such conclusion productive II must De OF widespread
and universal disaster unless thereto oy tue sound
oeic and the arest principles OF interpre1at.o,
Peops upsn full snd del berate exauina
the que ston OF its consuii0nsy aud has been
tally hs same People who chose the delegates constituting
II Convention which framed the Constitution and who al
The Exeetye OF the state has given bis aucton tbs
law AID the State oice have carried MO partial sAeeu
s. 4 number Of the most distinguished and ais iursis
and expoundes VI constitutional law have dehoers'ey ex
emined the question without any sppoaee oas I'S pro-
fesoi al employment andhaye written opinions ~ iA,oI al
the validity OF the law which are clear ana DECIDED and
without the expression Of doubt
I. Important rights IN great muittuoe OF cse' os
Immense of moAey, have become vested under ihs
law snd throush ats means million and nan Oh mas
large amouat Of the Gun ency Of the State based
upon the security of The Canal Revenue Cercate Issued
the Controller andeT the Acf which Is liable to De sud
otpv withdrawn from circulation and Thereby great oonfu-
sion eud result the pecunasy and coaer-
cs interests Of he citizens And finally decision by this
Count adverse TO tie validity q this law, Will greatly delay
iavorte cherished object Of the people OF the state
upon he speedy accomplishment of which their prosperity
greatly depends q,
admit IRE ct controlling uon this Conft yet Is not too
say that they shouio lead TO the most profound
crcusp ard induce require exceedingly clear
case eiore holding tho law unconstitutional beyond
sonsble eou,t.
9be rs objection to the validity Of this law il tia, pro-
ro.es TO create State debt In a authorized by
be Contribution but prohibited BY thai instrument The
.iecan is founded upon the h section of the seventh
,icc which called the hnsncal article OF the Constitution
That section provides that except the debts specified in The
zenith aud eleventh sections OF the article debt
shona he thereafter uaced by behalf Of State
ur les in TIE manner sno according the directions spec
ftd in the said 18th section. II the law under idera
ton derene for its authority upon the tenth eleventh and
tveuh sections any either Of them, vii
tend fer IFS validity.