Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1862-01-25
= . 8 >
tho Constitutional feature and provisions Of the act
svaived for the present, this not being material


to The riew now to be taken. sEsea.
TO prevent the Supreme Court from exercising
its proper functions and declaring the act void it
did the Stay Lao passed in May last-for fear the
Court would do so-for fear it might do so-for
feaFi u ought to do so--the Legislature assumed
the power to change the time of holding the terms
OF the Court until the act could operate and accom-
Plish the end contemplated by its authors 1t tied
up" CO ordinate branch of the government for
awhite If ] am asked how | know this was the
purpose had in view, answer first, that the natu-
raj effect of the act shows this to have been the pur
pose and contemporaneous debates and the records
Of the Legislature show the same. 1t may be added
that but for This reason there was total absence
of motise for exercising the high, unauthorized and
dangerous power Of interfering with the Supreme
CoHrt ..-...- -. .. 80. .--r~
But it Is not material for my present purpose how
tho court might have decided upon the act in quesr
ton. The question is, had the Legislature legitimate
power to intertere with the Supreme Court the
Supreme Judicial Power OF the State er6in to
branch Of government with ITSELF to prev Ont
it from exercising its proper functions tits denied
that the Legislature has such power, audit is insisted
that the exercise of the same, whether intended SO
or not Is n usurpation of power highly dangerous
to public liberty, without parallel in the history of
this State, If not in this country, and one too that
ought to be noted by the people at once and as
promptly checked
If the Legislature has such power, from what
that il has il by the express letter of the Consttu
ton. There is no language clause in that instru
mept that will bear such construction. Then, if
it exists at all, it does so by implication Let us
suppose this to be so. To what extent does the
implication gop What is the measure of the implied
powery Who, or what tribunal is to determine the
measure? None is pointed out by the Constitution
and under the suppostiOn Just made the Legislature
must be the judge of the measure of power and the
sole Judge Then the legislature in that respect
restrained. Let to what this may lead: If
the Legislature has power to provide that the Su-
preme Court shall not meet but once in twelve
months It has The power to require that it shall not
meet but once in five years but once in ten twenty
years, and by virtue Of the same power, it may
abolish tie Court absolutely and the whole judicial
system. II this is true the Legislature ght pass
any act however odious and oppressive, and how
ever yiolstive Of the Constitution and the people
must submit to it, or resist by by force I-by arms y
There would be be authorized tribunal TO declare
such act void. The check would be destrOyed-in-
capable Of performing its functions.
1t will not do to Say it is not probable the LegS
ature will exercise such power, for that it
has done So and we have no warrant that the next
stretch of power will not destroy altOgethera
dinate branch of the government, to the end that
unconstitutional acts may operate. Besides, the
object of Constitution is to cut off possible con-
tIngencies Of the character indicated. Experience
teaches US that men are fond of the exercise OF
power, and it will not do to trust them too far with
the liberties of the people, and hence the restraints
imposed upon Legislative bodies in all well regulated
governments. Ii is absolutely necessary to cut off
by constitutional provisions all possible motives to
exercise unauthorized power, by creating concOmi
tant checks that will certainly destroy any and
every attempt TO exercise them. If the Legislature
has the power over the Supreme Court to destroy
it absolutely or to postpone its terms at will, then
the deduction that it may pass any unconstitutional
act and force the Court To allow it to operate is
true. This cannot be. If so, then the COnSttu-
ton is nrOckeTy, untrue to ITSELF to the people,
and to public liberty Docs any one believe that
the trainers Of the Constitution intended such
implication? II involves an abSurdity. 1t leads
directly to the destruction of the Constitution ITSELF
and the implication does not, cannot exist. But
there is no necessity for such implication. Indeed
there are pow erfu reasons why it should not exist
some of which have been hintcd at. We have seen
that it might result in the absolute destruction of
| coordinate branch of the government. Will it be
said that the present necessity for "stay law"
shows the Importance and necessity for such impli
cation? This is not so, for if the act is not
rGnted by the Constitution, then it ought not to
main in force and if does not violate it then the
Court could do no harm, but much good in the dis
charge Of its regular business. There is con-
cevabe case in which there is necessity for inter
fering with the Court If the Legislature keeps
within the bounds of the Constitution then its acts
will be valid 1t has no right-nO authority from
the people, to 60 beyond these and when it does,
the Court ought to so declare. 1t is the duty of
the Court TO do so. 1t was established in great
part for this purpose 1t is absolutely necessary
check in government 1t is one of the 6Hiodrks
Of the liberties of the people. If it had been
deemed by the people wise and prudent to allow the
Legislature occasionally, in ats discretion, to pass
certain acts that are nOu unconstitutional then in
the formation of their organic law, they would have
made such provision But they made no such pro-
tlo ,l,o
Constitution, had no right to override it, and
checE on that body is necessary, and has been pro
| vided as indicated. The system of Semi-dnRual
| terms of the Courts existed long anterior to the
adoption of the Constitution. and this has been kept
up with the exception of ShortperIod bt0reitS adOp
ton, uniformly, down to the passage Of the act in
question. The system exists by uniform and unin-
! terrupted usage The Constitution recognizes the
system through its whole length, and indeed it may
be claimed part Of 10. 1t recognized the semi
! annual system at the time of its adoption-it went
into operation with this system, and by express
cogHtion, by implication and necessity, it became
part of The Constitution itself The amended Con-
stitution adopted in 1885 recognizes the Courts
a permanent SYSTEM If it did not the work of the
| trainers Of that instrument was imperfect as
have seen. This is not probable. And not
left to reason alone upon this point for shortly after
the adoption OF the Constitution the Court declared
an act Of the Legislature void, and has uniformly
exercised that power down to the present time.
With an experience of over century, the people
of the State have not found it necessary, desirable
practicable to depart from the uniform semiannual
terms Of the Court, and our fathers passed through
the revolution of 1776, through the of 1912,
through many monetary pressures, and through all
the storms attendant upon national existence with
out once thinking of changing the terms OF the
| Court to other than semannual terms.
| The Legislature struck powerful blow at free
! institutions in the passage of the Stay Lam Act,"
whether intended not and much as its effects are
felt and deprecated as practical measure Of legis-
lation these not to be compared with the effect
had upon the government ofthe State and the danger
Gus precedent set. That body not only undertook
to pass an unconstitutional sayLaO," but it went
| further to make this act operative, and "tied up