The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1864-04-16

iuxiediotion ovse ~ hnattoe - go
Vim induee the surrs1ne qsst q ~.
cpnlurm H. nl]pgs = ~ y = MO-,
Il matter vht Or
9naiuasioa 81 q 81 1T ~ =. -
arsly under ii r G. - Z y,
veil calculatsd - thu o6lrt not
only adhere 70 q bpinios With more
tenacity, bat also IS eznnine Il the law
does BOT Sitofd tEsS ~ .
eases pfoUl etheir own conatractioE
of thor own. consfituti0n, and their own
.stsfutes. within 3he Iim{ls 81 Elsslf UWE.
iurfsdiotion. What CHS my led to II is
nd tossibl4 nov to 1dre1ee, nor 10 ayis,Ae
to point out the field Of Judicial con6icss,
which may. never occur, bat whi6a # they
shall occult, will weigh heesily on y
court which should have yisl3e1 r. TIE
other, but did not.
The kessraI pfiaeiple is not so8pyeft-
ed BY the majority. that p - sst
courts of thes State belong the ri6et to
construe its statutes and its constStotion,
except WHARF, they may conflict With the
Constitution Of the United Sntesy hOme
statute or treaty made undo
| Nor ID il denied thst when snah Eeopr
structfon bas been gf<eu W sths1 Sale
cohst chat this court il bsund tef0llok +
Toe Gases on this p5ject are numerous,
and the principle Is as well settled, and is
as necessary to the harmonious working OF
our complex system of government ~ TIE
correlatise proposition that to this court
belongs the right to sxpou-d ccselassss1y,
for all other coarts, the Constitution aud
laws OF the Federal Goyernm1k ,fysv
See IL Wheaton, 36l Sheliay vs.. Guy;
8 Peters, 277 MClurg We. Silliman. II
Howard, e97 !; Van Rensselaer, vs. kear-
nev, IA Hossrd. 504 10 Wheaton. i5s;
2 Peters, 492.
But while admitting the general pr'n-
ciiple thu. laid down. tho court ssys Il Is
inapplicahle to the present case, because
there have been conflicting decisions on
this very point by the supreme court o.
Iowa, and that as tbs bonds issued while
the decisions OF that court holding such
linstrumentsto be constitutional were unre'
, versed, that this construction OF the con
6 s,itution must now govern this court in
stead Of the latter one. The moral forc'
. of this proposition is unquestionably verl
Il great. And l think, taken in connection
with some fancied duty Of thia court I
: enforce contracts. over and beyond tia
appertaining to other courts. has given tn
4 majority leaning towards the adoTtio
e Of rule. which in my opipion cannot B
. sustained either on principle or aMhos
i ity. ....s.
: Tie only special charge which tn
q / court has over contracts, beyond any othe
court, is to declare judicially whether tn
. statute Of State impairs their obligation
l. No such question arises here, for I'll
q plaintiff claims, underand BY virtue OF til
statute, which is here the subject of di
=, CUSTOM
q Neither is there any question of the Of
e legation Of contracts, or the right to er
!. force them. The question goes benin
= that. We are called upon, not to col
:. strue contract, nor to determine no
A. one shall be enforced, but to decid
q whether there ever was contract made
the case. To assume tina. there Was
!, contract, which contract is about to !
,f violated by the decisions OF the State cou
% of Iowa, is TO beg the very question
10 dispute. Ia deciding this question, ii
!. court is called upon, as the court 10 low
J. was, to construe the constitution of I'll
IF State. 1t is a grave error to suppose TIL
i. dis court must, or should determine Il
upon any principle which would not }
10 equally birding on the courts of Iowa,
al that the decision should depend upon ii
re fact that certain parties had purchase
.. bonds which were supposed to be val
is fcontfacts. when they really we're not
!. The supreme court of Iowa is not ii
as 6rst or the only court which has change
Id its rulings on questions as important
n the one now presented. / understand Il
e. doctrine 70 sha in sgah cases, mot that Il
st law is changed, but that It was always Il
is same as expounded by the later decisio
q and that the former decision was not, at
Of never had been, the law, and is overrul,
10 for that very reason. The decision Of th
4. court contravenes this principle. and hob
til that the decisioo Of the court makes 4
ne law, and in fact, that the same statctd,
,rt CONSTITUTIONS means ono thing in 1853, al
ne another thing in 1859. For il is isnplie
ly conceded, that if these bonds had be,
n. ISSUED since the more recent decision
no the Iowa court, this court would not no
I them valid.
no Not only is the decision Of thsscoou,
d. as | think, thus unsound 10 principle. b
Tor it appears TO me to be in conflict with
re- former decisions on this point, as | sh,
ate now attempt to show.
ida In the case Of Shelley VS.. Guy,
az Wheaton, 36l, a question a, ose /.
al the construction of the statute Of lin
tatious of Tennessee It was an q
IA. English statute, adopted by Tsnness
from North Carolina, and which had
1T many other States received uniform co
de. struction. 1t was stated on the argumer
ON however, that the highest court Of TIE
no nessee had given different constructi
no to it, although the opinion could not tn
,n be produced The court said that ont
i desire to follow the courts OF the Sta
II. ia tbs construction of their own statu,
to it would not then decide that auestio
m. but as the case had 70 be reversed on 9th
4 <~g~ A. "A IL