Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-03-20
The Supreme Court of the United
States W. the Congress of the United


The Supreme Court of the United
States W. the Congress of the United
states.
The National Intelhgencer, the official paper
of the Administration, in a very candid and
charitable review of Mr.. LINCoLN's inaugural,
dissents entirely from his theory of the subordi-
nation of the Supreme Court to Congress in the
matter of interpreting the Constitution. What
gives it more significance is the fact that Mr..
SEAToy, the proprietor, has recently been ap-
pointed postmaster of Washington City, and that
paper took different view of the subject but a
few months since 1t is a received doctrine that
the decisions of the Supreme Court, Federal and
State, are final upon all mooted Constitutional
questions within their jurisdiction. If it was
otherwise, if an appeal could be taken from the
determinations of that tribunal to either pop
uar elections or legislative bodies and
BY them reversed. anarchy and confusion
would inevitably result. But few
years ago, in our own State, the temperance
question was made political issue and the Leg
islature enacted stringent prohibitory law in
obedience to the behest of the majority. The
unconstitutonality of the enactment was passed
upon adversely by our Supreme Court. The de-
csion averse, at the time, to probably the
sentiment of majority of the people of the State.
According to the theory of the President the de
cision only applied to the case under review, and
did not establish doctrine which should govern
legislation and the action of the people. But
otherwise was the effect No matter how unsatis-
factory was the ruling of the Court. the people
Yielded to the decision the final arbiter upon the
constitutionality of the law and the princi-
Piles involved in it. Although the decision
of the Court made the law a dead
letter, the Legislature, by a large ma
jority, repealed it. thus confirming the power Of
the court to decide upon "the policy of the Gov
eminent upon vital questions affecting the whole
people, If this power or function was not con-
ferred upon them, it would be useless to have
court of last resort, and the rights of minorities
would be ever at the mercy of the despotism of
tickle and changing majorites. We are graft
fled to notice that the confidential organ of
the President is compelled TO rebuke mildly, but
firmly, the loose and dangerous principles enun
cated by the President in his Inaugural. We re-
produce the comments of the InteHigeRcer of
March I, upon what the President said in refer
ence to the province of the Supreme Court:
From the argument of the President in so
much of his Inaugural Address as relates to the
functions and provinces of the Supreme Court,
we need not say We entirely dissent The argu-
ment is as follows:
do not forget the position assumed by some that
stitutiona questions be decided by the Supreme
Court nor do deny that such decisions be binding
in any upon the parties TO suit to the object Of
that suit While they also entitled to very high
spect and consideration in all parallel by all other
departments Of the Government, and while il is obviously
possible that such decisions may be erroneous in any
given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited
that particular case, with the chance that il may be
overruled and become precedent for other
better be borne than could the evils OF different
practice At the time the candid citizen must
fess that if the policy of the Government upon vital
questions affecting the whole people, is be irrevocaby
fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the they
made, in ordinary litigation between parties in per-
sona actions the people will have ceased to be their own
rulers wing to that extent practically resigned their
Government into the hands Of that eminent tribunal MOI
is there in this view any assault upon the Court the
Judges 1t is duty from which they may not shrink to
decide properly brought before hem and is no
fault Of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to
| political purposes.
1t seems to us that this view proceeds from q
confusion of ideas with regard to the place oc
cupied by the Supreme Court in our political sys
TEN. The people in ordaining and establishing
the Constitution of the United States, chose t.
distribute the powers conferred and defined by
that instrument among three several distinct ant
| coordinate departments-the Executive til,
/ Legislative, and the Judicial Whatever i
/ done by each of these departments, within thu
scope of its constitutional province is done b,
the authority of the people; and as the people b,
the Constitution of the United States have APP
pointed that "the judicial power shall erfend q
all cases, in law and equity, arising under tti
Constitution" it follows that the decisions of tn
judiciary as trnly made in the names of tn
people when they deny when they affirm tn
consttutionality of measures passed 10y tn
| Legislative department And we hold that un
til decision of the Supreme Court expressl,
denying any grant of power claimed to resid
| in the Constitution, has been reversed by tina
same tribunal, and legislation of Congress il
contravention of such decision would be taken il
opposition 10 the theory of the Constitution, ant
equally in opposition to the highest iriH Of III
people, expressed in that Constitution. II
this extent the people have doubtless resigne
their government "into the hands of that emnen
tribunal and seeing, Mr. Madison justl
says, that such power must be deposited some
where, it is difficult to conceive how it could b
more wisely placed. IT it be said that on thi
theory the policy of the Government is in DANCE
of being fixed by decisions of the Suprem
Court in a sense adverse to the rights defined b
the Constitution, on "yital questions affectin
the whole people" we have but to claim in be
half of the Judiciary the just rule prescribed b
Mr. Lincoln, when, in denying the present ex
istence or future probability of any plain infrac
tons of the Constitution, he holds the following
language:
Happily che human mind is constituted that part
reach to the audacity of doing this Think if you
Of single instance in which plainly written provision
the Constitution has been denied IT. by the
force of numbers, majority should deprive minority
clearly written constitutional right, IL might, in
moral point of view justify revoution-cerainy would
such right a vital one. But such is cas-
plainly assured them by airmatons and negaton
guarantees and prohibitions in the Constitution that
troversies never arise concerning them.
In questions ofdisputed constitutionality ma
jority of the Supreme Court is the proper final al
bitter. In questions of disputed expediency alon,
a majority of the people, speaking through Cor
gress, and under the Constitution, Is the prope
final arbiter. But no majority of the latter, how
ever great, is competent to override decision {
the former. To do so is to create a schism in OF
; civil system, and We haze too long resisted til
mischievous dogmas of the Democracy under tn
head, to look with any more competency upo
them, because they have been equally espOuse
by the Republicans of the present day We al
content to stand in the old ways.