New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1860-10-24
u erleans gag Gtssem sysdutsta oa October "a, 1860,

ences of which We have spoken. And the Consti-
tuition and laws and treaties of the United States
and the powers granted to the Federal Govern
ment would soon receive different interpretations
in different States and the Government of the
United States would soon become one thing in one
State and.another thing in another 1t was essen
tial, therefore, to its very existence as Govern
ment that it should have the power of establishing
Courts of Justice, altogether independent Of State
power, to carry into effect its own laws; and that
tribunal should be established in which all cases
which might arise under the Constitution and
laws and treaties of the United States whether in
! State Court or a Court of the United States,
should be finally and concusiyely decided With
out such tribunal it is obvious that there would
be uniformity of judicial decision; and that the
supremacy (Which is but another name for indie
/ pendence) so carefully provided in the clause of
the Constitution above referred to, could not pos
sibly be maintained peacefully unless it asao.
ciated with this paramount judicial authority.
The Importance which the trainers Of the Con-
stitution attached to such tribunal, for the pnr
pose of preserving internal tranquility is strikingly
manifested by the clause which gives this Court
jurisdiction over the sovereign States which COM
pose this Union, when controversy arises between
them. Instead of reserving the right to seek re-
dress for injustice from another State by their
ereign powers, they have bound themselves to
submit to the decision of this Court and to abide
by its judgment. And it is not out of place to say
here that experience has demonstrated that this
power was not unwisely surrendered by the States
for in the time that has already elapsed since this
Government into existence, several irritating
and angry controversies have taken place between
adjoining States in relation to their respective
IL,
to end in force and violence, but for the power
vested in this Court to hear them and decide be-
! tween them. o5
4 This judicial power was justly regarded as in
dispensible, not merely to maintain the supremacy
of the laws of the United States but also to guard
the States from any encroachment upon these
reserved rights by the General Government. And
as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme
law, if it appears that act Of Congress is not
pursuant TO and within the limits of the power
assigned to the Federal Government, il is the duty
of the Courts of the United States to declare it
unconstitutional and void. The grant of Judicial
power is not confined to the administration of laws
4 passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Con
stitution, nor confined to the interpretations Of
such laws; but by the very terms of the grant
the Constitution is under their view where any act
|
duty to declare tie law void and refuse to execute
it, if it is not pursuant to the Legislative powers
conferred upon Congress. And as the final appel
late power in all such questions is given to this
Court controversies as to the respective powers
of the United States and the States, instead Of
being determined by military and physical force,
are heard investigated, and finally settled with
the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry.
\ Ao1p fail fn Oh ftar
had not been provided, in our complicated system
of government, internal tranquility could not have
been preserved; and if such controversies were
left to arbitrament of physical force, Govern
ment, State and National, would cease to be Gov
ernments of laws, and revolutions by force Of
arms would take the place Of Courts Of Justice and
judicial decisions.
In organizing such tribunal, il is evident that
every precaution was taken which human wisdom
could devise, to fit it for the high duty with which
it was entrusted twas not left to Congress to
create it by law, for the States could hardly be
expected to conide in the impartiality Of tribu
nal created exclusively by the General Govern
ment without any participation on their part. And
as the performance Of its duty would sometimes
come in conflict with individual ambition or inter-
eats and powerful political combinations an act of
Congress establishing such tribunal might be re-
pealed in order to establish another more subser-
Went to the predominant political influences or ex
cited passions of the day. This tribunal, there.
fore, was erected, and the powers of which we
have spoken, conferred upon it, not by the Federal
Government, but by the people of the States, who
found and adopted that Government and conferred
upon it all the powers, legislative, executive, and
judicial, which it now possesses. And in order to
secure ifs independence, and enable it faithfully
and firmly to perform its duty it engrafed it upon
the Constitution itself and declared that this Court
should have appellate power in all cases arising
under the Constitution and laws of the United
States. So long, therefore, as this Constitution
shall endure, this tribunal must exist with it, decid
ing in the peaceful forms of judicial proceeding
the angry and irritating controversies between
soveregnties, which, in other countries, have been
determined by the arbtrament of foree.3
In the case of Gohens Us. Virginia, 6 Wheat. R.
$3.50, Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering the IMAM
imous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United
States, holds this emphatic and explicit language
'aFhe people made the Constitution, and the
people can unmake it. Il is the creature of their
will, and lives only by their will. Blu this supreme
and irresistible power to make or to unmake re-
sides only in the whole body of the people; not
in any subdivision of them Tn attempt of any
of the parts to exercise it is usurpatiep and ought
to be repealed by those to whom the people have
delegated their power of repeng it.n
So in Abieman Us. Booth, q How. r. 1924,
(Which was case growing out of resistance to the
execution of the fugitive slave law in wisconsin,
Chief Justice fancy, in giving the unanimous opin-
ion of the Court, says:
And although, as we have said, it is the duty Of
the Marshall or other person holding him, to make
known, by a proper RETURN the authority under
which he detains him, it Is at the same time m
peratvey his duty to obey the process of the United
States, to hold the prisoner in custody under it,
and to refuse obedience to the mandate or process
of any other government. And consequently it
is his duty not to take the prisoner suffer him
to be taken, before State Judge or Court upon
| hdbeas corpus issued under State authority. No
State Judge or Court, after they are judcially in
formed that the party is imprisoned under the au-
thority of the United States, has any right to inter-
fere with him, require him to be brought before
| them.
| And if the authority of State, in the form of
| judicial process or otherwise should attempt to
control the Marshal or other authorized officer
agent OF the United States in any respect, in the