The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1858-12-11

posed to be universally recognized, that the
judicial department Of every government,
when such department exists, is the ap-
proprate organ for constituting the legi-la-
tive acts Of that government. Thus no
court in the universe, which professed to
be governed by principle, would, we pre-
sumo, undertake to say that the courts Of
any other nation had misunderstood their
own statutes and therefore erect itself
into a tribunal which should correct such
misunderstanding. We receive the CON
struction given by the courts OF the ma
ton as the true sense Of the law. and feel
ourselves no more at liberty to depart
from that construction than TO depart
from the words OF the statute. Elmfa-
a7rf vs. Tayi0r. 10 Wheat. lj2. This pro-
cceds upon the reason that the courts Of
country are presumed to have a more in
timate knowledge Of the reason and OBJ
iacts OF its statutes than any foreign tribu-
nal. and consequently to be more compe-
tent 10 give a Just exposition OF them with
reference to the purpose for which they
were passed. Accordingly, II is said by the
Supreme Court OF the United States, in the
Commercial Bank vs.. BuchUyiqm. ) How
@ i3: 1T Is the peculiar province and
privilege Of the State courts TO constrUe
their own statutes, and Il Is no part Of Hc
fa,-'.5ne Of this court to rerislC thar 9.ciyoas
or osseus jurisdiction orer than 0n The pretcncc
t1atfer .ip4gmaaa hare impaired ne oJHgat'ons
of contracts" This rule has been often
recognized and acted upon by that court.
insomuch that they have abandoned their
own decisions made in accordance with
the rule as settled by the State courts,
and conlormed themselves to new and
different rule established b. subsequent
decisions of those courts.
Is this rule altered by the 25th section
Of the judiciary act, which gives iurisdic-
ton to the supreme Court to revise a
judgment of State court, declaring that
a State statute does not impair the obliga-
ton Of a contract arising upon q previous
statute? We think not.
The question for the Supreme Court, in
such a case. is, whether the second statute
is unconstitutional, and its power is CON
fined to determining the force and effect
| of that statute That court has authority
| To declare whether that statute impairs
| the rights secured by the previous statute
| or contract But how are these rights TO
| he ascertained and determined? Noques-
| ton Of the constitutionality Of the first
! statute is presented, but the question a. TO
! that simply is. what Is It's force and effect,
! and what was granted by il The right
| to determine that, stands upon the gene
/ raj principle applicable to the construc-
! ton Of statutes above stated. and must be-
/ long to the State If this were not true.
4 any matter OF State policy depending upon
! its statutes and the expo-itiou- It's courts.
/ would be subject to revision by the Su-
! pleme Court, whenever any statute slbse-
/ gucntly passed might be alleged to affect
! rights acquired or claimed under previous
| statutes or contracts and under color Of
| the power to pronounce the statute com
! planned of unconstitutional, that court
! might proceed to reverse all the decisions
! of the State courts determining the force
and effect of the contract. whether foUn-
ded-on a statute or general rules Of law,
alleged to he violated by the obnoxious
! statute. and thus subyert the entire policy
| OF the State upon the subject matter OF
| the controversy. And it would follow that
| the construction Of all contracts made
| under State laws, would be brought with.
IN the oyerrulins power Of the federal
! government, whenever State mi ght think
fit to pass any statute i'll relation TO such
contracts The fallacy and danger Of such
a doctrine appear to bc obvious.
! Suppose that there had been no genera
statute in this State. authorizing the rs
signment OF promIssory notes; and tia
this Bank had transferred a note, claim
ing the right 70 do SO under the provision
Of its charter and that question OF it'll,
in the assignee had arisen, and that thi
court had decided that il had no powe
by the charter to make the assignment
there can he no doubt that that deci>
ion would have been conclusive of tn
right Of assignment, and that no cour
could have disregarded ii without a viola
tion of established doctrine But sup
pose, in addition to this, that aftcrward,
the legislature, in order to prevent tn
practice Of unauthorized assignments b
banks, passed a statute prohibiting sue
assignments, or repeating the general la,
authorizing assignments of evidences c
debt; and that, notwithstanding this,
suit had been brought by an assignee {
such paper. and that the judgment Of til
, court thereupon had been that the assign
{ ment passed no title, could that court. !
such case, reverse the settled law of tn
7 State, as held in the case FIRST supposed
: We say decidedly not II this was a cas-
| | of an ordinary csntract betwern two ind
e | yiduals. the force and effect OF which ha
lseen settled by our courts 1t could scarce
e ly be pretended, that upon any questio
: arising upon the validity of a statute sui
0 scQuently passed affecting that contrac
I the Supreme Court would be authorize
[ to reverse the construction of the cor
# tract settled by this court and 10 give
r q different force and effect; and the cas
( is equally strong against the power, wit
s. regard 10 the established construction {
4 our own statutcs-so that no aid i derive
e to the argument in favor of the power
a the Supreme Court, from the fact that til
charter of the bank Is contract. FL
a | whether contract or statute, or both, Il
Y | equally subject to the icr Ioc| coTrgctf
n which this court has the power absolutel
. todetermine. Butnthe power Of revi~io
It exists in the Supreme Court of the Unite
@ States. il gives to that court authority
n reverse the settled law Of this State,
e declared by its constituted tribunal in r
IS lation to the rights vested under its ow
laws. whenever that court can take iuri
a diction by means Of another statute whic
p may be passed touching the subject an
a the constitutionalitv of which may 7
\ questioned, when that court would ha,
II no power to reverse the decision, as {
! rectly made, which settled the constrcu
tlNll VI lilt nus NtlstAtil
- that court TO do indirectly what it has !
IF power to do directly-to reverse the se
: tied law Of this State in relation to a
IF settled statutes, hy extending the now
N given by the judiciary act to determil
"a the validity OF particular statute aller,
,c to be unconstitutional, SO as 10 authori
N that court TO give construction to anot
n er statute or contract in opposition to I
,e decisions OF our own courts And t
,r power Is thus denied to this court. to {
lie termine ;he rights which pass to a cor,
T. ration by charter granted by our o1
" | legislature, and affecting our own poop
e. II may be safely asserted. that no su
'e dangerous and anomalous powerwas ey
e. intended to be conferred upon that cor
lie by the Judiciary act, which was passed
r. men who so well understood the rigl
I'd and powers of the States.
We In all cases taken to the supreme Cou
er under the judiciary act, upon the groul
he that State statute impairs the obiisat
ne of a contract. she question directly pfese
TO ted for consideration, and whlch Is |
be ground of the jurisdiction Is Whe,h
m hat statute is constitutions OF hot! IL
in true that the question Is also involve
nj What is theright secured 10y the contrao
bp / Rut that Is not the Efouliu ol the .lut
m diction. and is merely incidentally invo
To- cd. The nature and eNtsnt OF therightu
y, der tho contract, depend upon the law
pg the state ana must be determined 10y
ted own tribunals, winch furnish therule ot(
of cision upon that point in cases of this kir
IN as in all other cases depending upon :
on construction ofthe law Of any State III
We is distinct question from the Questi
ioa whether the right secured is impaired
M the statute alleged to impair ii. and is
W. be determined by reference to the settl
at law of the State, and not bv the views
nd the Supreme Court upon the subject. A
in any other doctrine would be in OPPOSITE