Daily national Democrat., 1858-12-15
E. .. WrLDMAN WHIrEHoUsE,
Late Electrician to the At. Tel. Co.

IMPORTANT OPINIoNs-The decision of tie
Supreme Court, lately rendered in the case
of Ferris VS.. Coover ct al, is one of much inn
portance, and the opinions rendered by the
Chief Justice and Associate Justices, of still
greater Importance as affecting future cases.
A condensed report of the opinions alluded
to- appears in the Union of yesterday,
which we cannot render briefer without con
veyihg wrong impressions as to the meaning
of each opinion as a whole, and we therefore
copy the Unions abstroct in full:
The Supreme Court delivered decision,
yesterday, in the case of Ferris VS.. Coover ct
al, in which final judgment was rendered,
recently, affirming the judgment of the Court
below. Subsequently, the appellant obtain
ed from the Clerk Of the United States Cir.
cult Court for California a writ of error, com.
manding the record to be sent before the Su-
preme Court of the United States, in order
that the judgment of this State may be there
reviewed, and applied to one of the Associ-
ate Justices to fix the necessary bond, grant
a stay of proceedings and award citation to
the respondent to appear before the Supreme
Court of the United States and maintain the
validity of this judgment. The Judge appli-
ed to ordered that the application should be
urged before the Court, upon notice to re-
spondent to show cause why it should not be
granted. The questions raised upon the ar
gument of the motion are: First, the consti-
tutionality of the 25th section of the Judicial
ry Act of 1889, which provides for an appeal
from the highest State tribunals to the Su-
preme Court of the United States; second.
whether, admitting the validity of the Act,
the case under consideration is within its
provisions; and third whether the authority
to determine this latter question can be pro-
perly exercised by this Court. While all the
members of the Court agree as to the concu.
sion at which it arrived Judge Terry differed
with his associates upon the first and third
propositions. The Chief Justice is of the
opinion that if the Court admit the appellate
jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court of the Uni.
ted States over the judgments and decisions
of the State Court, it must follow that the
province of determining the cases in which
the jurisdiction can be exercised belongs to
the appellate Court, and that a contrary doc
trine would involve the inconsistency of al
lowing the jurisdiction of the superior to be
defeated by the action of the inferior tribu-
nal. After reviewing the history of our Gov
ernment in this connection, and former dec-
sions, he says this is not, in his opinion, one
of those questions to which the doctrine of
stare deciSiS ought to be applied. No inter
ests which have grown up, no rights of pro-
perty which may have been acquired under
the rule established would be endangered or
lost by its abrogaton. The effect of the con
trary doctrine would be felt only by future
litigants, and could not by possibility have a
retroactive operation. 1t is the duty Of Judges
to decide all questions which arise in cases
before them according to the Constitution
and laws, and while the decisions Of other
tribunals should be respectfully considered,
and all due weight given to them to which
they may be entitled by reason of the learn
ing and ability of the tribunal from which
they emanate, yet respect for authority
or a rigid adherence to precedent should never
influence Judge to go counter to his own
convictions of the requirements of the Con
stitution and laws. For these reasons the
application should be denied The Associate
Justices, Baldwin and Field, acknowledge the
validity of the Act of Congress of the United
States. passed in 1889, commonly called the
Judiciary Act On the constitutionality of
the 25th section, providing for an appeal,
they say they recognize the rule that, in the
EXPOSITION OF NOuoliIullOHcJ uS VI lHltIlOI
laws, the solemn, deliberate, aad long settled
precedents of Courts, and the practice and
acquiescence of Governments and people,
should possess controlling weight. With all
proper Difference to opposing views, it APP
pears to them that just respect to such high
authority, especially in cases of doubt, ought
to conclude the action of Courts in favor of
the principle so established, even when the
individual opinions of the Judges would be
different were the question res integra. In
this instance they do net feel warranted, in
the face of the elaborate and learned reason
ings and repeated adjudications of the high
est Courts and the most eminent Judges of
the Union, to hold that clause of the Act
clearly unconstitutional which they have pro-
nounced clearly constitutional. They say
further, in holding the Judiciary Act of 1889
to be constitutional, they by no means recog-
nze an unlimited right of appeal from the de-
cisions of this Court to the Supreme Court of
the United States. The Act gives no such
right. The appellate power ofthe Supreme
Court in this respect is strictly limited to the