The north Iowa times. [volume] (M'Gregor [i.e. McGregor], Iowa) 1856-1857, 1857-07-03
From th. " asllington nion.
CONFLICT OFMAwS.

/ e.. From ths W Washington nion.
r. ~. CoNFL1cT OFHAws. ....
Every good citizen who desires to
preserve the harmony and secure the
psrpetuity Of our institutions must re.
gret any appearance of conflict in the
laws by which we are governed. Our
institutions arc simple and admirable in
theory. though apparently complex. in
consequence Of the peculiar distribu-
ton Of powers and duties. The Con-
stitution devolves upon the federal gov
ernment q limited number of enumera.
ted duties. forbidding the exercise OF
any others. and reserves to the states
and people all the powers. except few
specific restraints upon the former
State constitutions and laws delegate to
municipal and corporate bodies various
powers, under which numerous laws are
made. Congress. thir'y-one States and
seven Territories. besides other bodies
acting under them. are enacting laws
hundreds of courts are expounding, and
- many ministerial officers are execu.
ting them. The only escape from actual
conflicts Of Legislation and construction.
a. well 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 ap-
pearance Of conflict. but none in reality
need occur. When each authority con.
ines ito action within proper limits all
this apparently complicated legal ma
chinsry will move with as much regu.
larity snd certainty as our planetary sys-
TEN, in which each Of the heavenly
bodies moves noiselessly in its proper
orbit.
The United States courts exercise a
limited jurisdiction, mostly confined to
questions arising under the national con
stitntion, treaties, laws, and authority
the United States. while the State tri.
bunals construe 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
whore they impair the obligation OF
contract. where they judge for them
selves because questions arising under
the constitution are involved. The ob-
ject has been not to settle questions oi
title to property, as determined by the
judiciary ofs State, and therefore they
have followed the constructions of the
State tribunals, even when they chan ge
their course Of adjudication. The Su-
preme court of the United States has
held laws of Congress and those OF
ates impairing the obligation of con
tract to be void. and State tribunals
have often declared those of their State
invalid for the same cause. In cases
where the common law alone controls,
there is more danger of difference among
tribunals.
Each State. except Louisiana. has
adop!ed the common instead of the
civil law. where it has not modified i,
BY statute. The common, or unwrit.
ten law, is a body of principles found.
ed in natural justice, approved by the
wisdom Of ages, and, to a great extent.
sanctioned by express adjudicati,ns oi
high tribunals. The common law
adapts itself to the relations of prac ical
life and the wants and necessities which
attach to man and surround human in.
stitutlons.
Every tribunal. State and national,
searches for these principles, and ap-
plies them for itself. Hence the differ.
ences in the decisions in the various
courts, even in the same State. All
do not judge alike. either as To the prin
ciple involved or its application to the
case in hand. This is not conflict OF
law. but a difference of opinion as to
what the law is. Until man becomes
perfect in judgmen. and possesses un-
limited knowledge, these differences
must sometimes occur.
The Supreme Court arrogates to itself
no superiority over tribunals, but, like
them, searches the fountains of right
and reason. and the conditions Of man
and his relations to society and the world
as they exist, to enable them to admin.
lister justice in the sense of their oaths
In common-law cases this court is neith.
er bound nor authorized. against their
own sense Of right, to follow the deci.
sions of State courts. nor are the lats er
bound to follow those Of the Supreme
Court. Each judges and acts for itself,
.v;v,u., %An~ 1..o.:o,, .. - -
which tho reasons adduced to sustain it
may warrant. Upon every case the
common law. rightly understood, has
but one rule. and when there Is a want
Of harmony in decisions upon it, the
difficulty is hot with he law. but it is in
the errors Of those who declare and ap-
ply it. There can b. but one rule Of
right. but men may mistake both the
rules and its application. This occa-
sions all the apparent conflicts Of deci-
sions in cases which are determined up.
on the principles Of the common law or
equity. In cases where there is real
difference there is no common superior
to determine which is right. But wis.
dom and prudence will prevent any seri.
GUS consequences resulting from this
cause.
Every judicial tribunal should seek.
as far as it's constitutional duty will per.
NIT. to avoid even tho appearance OF
conflict. and seek by all proper means to
promote harmony and kind feeling in
the whole judiciary. All efforts to oc-
casion conflict. or even differences
should bs avoided by all good citizens.
and frowned down. BY whomsoever and
wheresoever made.
A NEW FEAruRE.-The Troy my y
-,ducad a nav fea.ura nj