Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1857-04-25
-
Extremes Meet.

We have never been more furciby impressed
with the truth Of this apothegm than in reading
the following article which forms the concluding
paragraph of an editorial in the New York Eyen-
ing Post. formerly Democratic, bu, now Free
Soil journal. In its structures upon the decision
Of the Supreme Court in the bred Scott case j,
remarks
The Supreme Court, however in saying that the ju-
dicial department has the power TO determine what
laws Congress may and may not directly assumes
this political power; and we arc 10 be tied hand anu
foot In purely political matters, by the de- rces o.
half dozen men who wholly irresponsible To the
popular will who cannot be removed from their pia-
res and WHO are fitted neither by their education nor
qualifications for the determination ofpoltieal ques
tons
This isa strict construction Of the constitution
with vengeance strict indeed in gripping Congress
but broad beyond what federalism ever dreamed Of
in arming the Supreme Court with extraordinary
pow 1r Hence il will be seen how vastly greater is
the responshility in saying that Congress has not
certain power than in deciding that 1t has or may
have Congress has the sole power 70 cgislatc over
the territories, and whether that power IS properly
exercised is question vi b which the JUDICIAL de-
partment Ought never 10 interfere for Il The court
make a.. erroneous decision the decree must stand
and the mischief arising from ii are ifremedable IT,
however Congress should commit error, the error
be corrected by repeal Legislation can he conn-
teracted by legislation. The legislator, them 'effes
The questions in dispute N y . removed ifom
the halls of the Capitol TO the ballo-buA, aud in tbs
way only can the people be said 10 govern them
selves.
While we have disposition TO ncease our
able contemporary of unworthy motives mud would
chari,ably believe that in thus denying to the
Supreme Court the exercise Of "a power with
which, it seems to us, the Constitution has full
ly invested it; we cannot but think thai If its de-
cision had been in eonsonancc with the
sympathies Of the Post, this censorship would
have been spared While the Post maintains
that "n thus being tied hand and foot IN purely
political matters, by the DEGREES of hall a dozen
men who are wholly irresponsible to the popular
WILL" authority has been assumed "beyond whit
federalism ever dreamed OF, in arminE the supreme
Court with extraordinary power" we wish 10
show what was tho South Carolina doctrine
upon this same point, as illustrated and enforced
in the remarkable speech of Mr.. llayne in 1880,
when the great battle for the Constitution
fought, and this doctrine of the Constitution
that ''ihe judicial power of tho United states
shall extend to erery case arising under The
lars Of Congress, was placed on cgnable
ground by Daniel Webster. II will be perceived
too, that the restrictions eont,nded fol by Mr.
Hayne relative to the jurisdiction of the supreme
Court political questions are nearly If n't
exactly identical with those maintained by the
N Y Post. :" 1t is clear said fr lleyne,-
THAT questions OF sovereignty are not tho prop
or subjects of judicial investigation They are
much too large, and of too delicate II nature. to
BIO brought within the jurisdiction of court of
justice. Courts, whether supreme or subafdi
nate, are the mere creatures of the sovereign
power. designed to expound and cariy into effect
its sovereign will. No Independent State ever
yet submitted to judge on the bench the true
construction Of compact between itself aud AN
other sovereign. All courts may incidentally
take cognizanee of treaties where rights are
claimed under them. but who ever heard of a
court making inquiry into the au,horiiy OF the
high contracting parties To mike the treaty
whether its terms had beer fulfilled whelher
ii had become void, on account of n breach Of i,s
conditions on either side All these are poiit
cal and not judicial questions.
Though jurisdiction is given in eases arising un-
der the Constitution, yet it is expressly limited 10
cases in law aud equity, showing conclu,lvely
that this jurisdiction incidental merely 10 The
ordinary administration of justice mud rot inten-
ded 10 touch high questions of conflicting Sorrr-
Ggnty. When it is declared that The constitution
aud the laws Of the United State. made in plrsu-
ance thereof shnll be the supreme Jaw, Of the land,
ii Is manifest that ma indication is given,ther as
to the power Of the Supreme Court 10 bind the
States by lis decisions, nor as to the course 10
be pursued in the event Of laws being passed not
in pursuance of the Constitution. But
as with regard to treaties, the Supreme Court
has never assumed jurisdiction oyer questions
arising between the sovereigns who are parti~s
to it, so under the Constitution. they cannot as
sumo jurisdiction over questions arising bettreen
the individual States and the /. State. We have
not space to pursue these extracts further. nor
to continue the elaborate aud systematic argu.
ment by which. in speech of great power, they
were maintained Ii is sufficient TO our purpose 10
say that they were met at the time; and HAT
upon the Constitutional principles volved and
settled by the irresistible logic Of Mr.. Webster.
the country (if may except few
extreme politicians in the South) has ever
since rested until the late DECISION Of the
Court disturbed the cquanm;ty os the
hosts of aboiion'sm who live by agitation
.tIf the Court makes an erroneous decision, the
decree must stand. and the mischief> arising from
it are irremediable." All there's the rub; il is
the break water interposed by the decision of the
Court, from the fact that it is "irremediable,'
which troubles those who give themselyes,lt would
seem. more concern about Free Kansas" than
for the safety and perpetuity of the Union. -
There is but one thought which we desire in
conclusion 10 deduce from these examples, and