The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-09-01

gressiona! prohibition is the very ground
on which the veto message puts the ques-
lion. and it Is certainly a mat;ersof SUR
prise fllaf the opinion does not even pro-.
5ess 70 meet it.
By tie organic act and supplements,
Congress says 10 the, Legislature il sub
staaee and effect, the permaneas seat OF
government is place where the appro-
l.riations shall be expended. A tempo
fsry seat IS place where they shall not
be expended. Tie. one shall precede the
other and be superseded by it. You are
permitted TO fix the permanent seat
we have fixed the temporary, and we
forbid rou from doing anything incon-
sislent with what We have done.
Thisis the view of the question upoii
which the veto message IS mainly based.
and | have examined the opinion of the
Chief Justice IN vain for 4 reply to it. 4
srefutatien OF this would be important, but
in the absence of refutation what boots it
70 tell US that the Congress of i777-the
Congress OF 1890, and the Parliament of
England, uncontrolled By any superior
power, exercised as they pleased the abb
solute authority which they possessed
over their place of meeting? OF what
use to prove that tie constitution OF
Maryland permits their Legislature, in
certain Cases, 10 meet elsewhere than at
the Constitutional place? OF what con
sequence 10 argue that fixing seat of
government is one of the "rightful SUBJ
jeets of legislation Gin the absence of
prohibition, when the prohibition stlres
Us IN the face, and Is the basis Of the adj
verse argument? Why promulge as an
unqualified traisin that the superior pow
ers Include inferior ones, when the prae-
tice of every Court of Justice disproses
and eoniradicts it
Having thus fairly stated and CLEARLY
reflIaed the propositions and reasons OF
the opinion my task is ended. There
are other collateral matters in that opin-
ion which it might be profitable to refer
io-and especially the erroneous idea In
The predatory apology that the -ailedgeI
objection 70 the validity OF the laws is
one which a judicial tribunal could not
take cogfizaHce OF, and which is refdied
by the very case he cites-but my over
ruling desire to avoid prolixity, and to
make this review brief and direct, indu-
ces me to pass them over in silence.
There IS one and only ore additional |
matter to which ] ought, perhaps to al !
lude The opinion supposes some ex-
treme cases ofstrong reasons for removal |
from seat OF government, and Of great |
hardships if compelled to remain. These |
might mislead unframed minds, and / |
have only to say that if a Legislature
have the power, it is of no avail to say
that their reasons are insufficient, for they |
are the sole judges of those reasons. Ii
they have no such power, the strongest
reasons cannot, of themselves, change a
constitution or controlling act to give
them that power. The same reasons
might exist for the removal of Court
from the prescribed seatof justice bus there
are no lawyers and few men WHO are so
rgnorantas not 10 know that the removal
would be totally unauthorized and nuga
tory. Tbs powers of our Legislature it
is true, are greater than those of Court
but still they have their fixed limits,
which they can no mere transcend than
a Court can transcend theirs.
However | may differ as to the propri-
ETY. of an opinion at ail, it is due to the
Chief Justice to say that the inefiiciency
of his arguments is to be aseribed not to
his want of ability, but to the weakness
OF cause in support ofwhich am con-
sinced, no man, of whatever ability,
could make an argument which it would
cost any great amount of mental labor to
tiiumplaItly refHte. A. FL. kEEDER.
SHAwsEE Mission, K r.,
Aur. 22d, 1855.