Preble County Democrat. [volume] (Eaton, Ohio) 1857-1859, 1857-07-02
OF LAWS.

EEE aNE 49, A.y rs
greet any appearance of conflict in the
laws by which, we are governed. Our
institutions are simple and admirable in
theory, though apparently complex, in
consequence of the peculiar distribution
of powers and duties. The constitution
dcvolves upon the federal government a
limited number of enumerated duties,
~forbidding the exercise of any others,
and reserves to the States and people all
other powers, except a few specific
restraints upon the former. State con-
stitutions and laws delegate to municip-
al and corporate bodies various powers;
under which numerous laws are made.
Congress, thirty-one States and sever
Territories, besides other bodies, acting
under them, are cnacting laws; hun
dreds of courts are cxpounding, and as
many ministerial officers are executing
them. g.. The only escape from actual
conflicts of Legislation and construction,
as we'll as execution, rests in each keep
ing within the limits of constitutional
and legal authority. With all care and
caution there will be an occasional APP
p~earance of conflict, but none in reality
need occur. When each authority con
fines its action within proper limits all
this apparently complicated legal ma
chincry will move with as much regu-
larity and certainty as our planetary
system, in which each of the heavenly
bodies moves. enoisolcssly in its proper
orbit.
The United States courts exercise a
limited jurisdiction, mostly confined to
question arising under the national con-
stitution, treaties, laws, and authority
of the United States, while the State tri-
bunals eonstrue their own constitutions
and statutes for themselves. The Uni
ted States courts under the Judiciary
act of 1889, follow the State tribunals
in such cases, wherever their construc-
ton is settled, except in the single case
where they impair the obligation of con
tract, when they judge for themselves,
because questions arising under the con
stitution are involved. The object has
been not to unsettle questions of title
to property, as determined by the judi
ciary of State, and therefore they have
followed the construction of the State
tribunals, even when they change their
course of adjudication. The Supreme
Court of the United States has held laws
of Congress and those of States impair
ing the obligation Of contract to be void,
and State tribunals have often declared
those of their State invalid for the same
causes. In eases where the common law
alone controls, there is more danger Of
differences among tribunals. Each
State, except Louisiana, has adopted the
common instead Of the civil law, where
it has not modified it by statute. The
common, or unwritten law, is a body of
principles founded in natural justice,
approved by the wisdom of ages, and to
a great extent, sanctioned by express
adjudications of high tribunals. The
common law adapts itself to the rcla-
lions of practical life and the wants and
necessities which. attach to man and sur
round human institutions.
Every tribunal, State and national,
searches for these principles, and applies
them for itself. Hence the difference
in the decisions in the various courts,
even in the same State. All do not
judge alike, either as to the principle
involved or its application to the case
in hand. This is not Il conflict of law,
but-a difference Of opinion as to what
the law is. Until man becomes perfect
in Judgment, and possesses unlimited
knowledge, these differences must some
times occur. The Supreme Court AFRO
gates to itself no superiority ovcr State
tribunals. but, like them, searches the
fountain of right and reason, and the
condition Of man and his relation to So
ciety and the world as they exist, to en-,
able them to administer Justice in the
sense of their oaths. In common law
cases this court is neither bound nor
authorized, against their own sense oil
right, to follow the decisions of State
courts, nor are the latter bound to fol
low those of the Supreme Court. Each
judges and acts for itself, giving thai
consideration to the other which the
reasons adduccd to sustain it may war.
rant. Upon every case the common
law, rightly understood, has but one
rule, and when there is q want of har.
mouy in decisions upon it the difficulty
is not with the Law, butit is in the error:
of those who declare and apply it
There can be but one rule of right, but
men may mistake both the rule and it.
application. This occasions all the ap
parent conflicts of decision in case
which are determined upon the princi
pies Of the common law or equity. II
cases where there is a real difference
there is Uncommon superior to deter
mine which is right. But wisdom ant