The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-03-28

CLAUSE of the Constitution, and the power
of the Court under 1t, says: 1.-THE Supreme
il Court has exclusive. Jurisdiction of all
CONTROVERSIES Of civil nature, where q
State is a party" Kent CON-, vol. ], 297.
'The determ ination of the Supreme Court
OF the Omitted States, In every such case
must be final and conclusive; because the
Constitution gives to this tribunal the
p0Wert0 decide, and gives no appeal from
| the decisions" Kents Com, vol. /, 314.
But even If compelled to resort to the in
feriOr courts, and seek the decision Of the
court of last resort, through its. appellate
i Jurisdiction, Is there not too much of prin-
i ciple involved in this controversy to be
deferred from the appeal by the plea, that
delay and Inconvenience mustresult from
i such a course. 1
"A free peaple have no security for their
| liberties, when an appeal to the judicial
| department becomes either illusory or
Questionable. Every Government must,
| in its essence, be unsafe, and unfit. for
free people, where ajudicial department
does notsexist, with powers co-extensive
with that of the legislative department"
Story's Com. on Constitution.
The Constitution is the supreme law of
the land, and if its remedies are not with
in reach of the citizen through some ju-
dicial form, competent to decide and able
/ to protect, ''then the people would be at
the mercy of the State and National Gov
ernments, and an omnipotence would
practically exist like that claimed for the
British Parliamcnt."-Story's Com.
In the case already cited of Cohens VS. The
State of Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall
says: at is emphatically the province of
| the Judicial Department to say what the
law is; so, If a law be in conflict with the
Constitution, the Court must determine
whether the law is to prevail or the Con-
stitution.',
But it would be useless to multiply au-
thorities, to show the power and duty of
the courts to give relief against this mon
strous act of legislation. 1t matters but
little whether that relief shall come thro'
the original or appellate jurisdiction ofthe
Supreme Court, and therefore pass to the
consideration of the second interrogatory
Would the opinion of the court be res
pected and enforced We have had
practical test of the fidelity of the court in
its Judgment on the law of the test oath
required by the act of January 18th, 1865
Has not that judgment been carried out ? |
and should the Supreme Court declare this |
law unconstitutional, who is to enforce it? |
The legislative department of the govern
ment would be powerless to take single /
step in opposition to the opinion of the I
court. Who would issue the orders for its I
enforcement !; what would be the nsodsls
operdndi of its enforcement? We might be
visited with other acts of legislative OPP
preston, but the opinion of the court that
this act is without the authority of the
Constitution, would forever settle the
question, so far as this act is concerned.
: When this act was passed, it met the veto
of the President, and was returned to the
house in which it originated, with his OBJ
jections. 1t was then passed over his veto
by the requisite constitutional majority of
votes, by both Houses, and became in form
a law. Objection has been made that the
President allows it to go into operation. He t
has exhausted his constitutional powers, in
opposition to the bill, and does not propose
to meet it by factious opposition.
At the session of 1865, the Legislature of
with great unanimity, passed
what was known as the Relief Law. The
Executive of the State, honestly believ- +
ing it in violation of the Constitution, We
Ioed the law, and returned it to the house II
in which it originated, with his objections
it was passed over his veto by the consti-
5utional number of votes required; there
was no one in Mississippi who was heard
to say that it was then the duty Of our
Governor to prevent the execution of the
Jaw; and so when the High Court of En-
rors and Appeals came to pass on this law,
and determine it to be unconstitutional,
as were the people of Missis-
5lDp1 IOI ItIkCtS HUI u WOIudIl |
In the Land thought of resisting the decis-
ion of the court.
And so will, so must it be when the SUI
oreme Court of the United States shall
pronounce this law without the authority ;
IF the Constitution. No respectable Off
,er of the Federal Army will be found to
,bey the behests Of faction, and turn deaf {
ar to the supreme law Of the land, as it I
hall be expounded and interpreted by the t
1.i hmm al ornninfQ6 hU tho Constitution n
But it is urged that the court itself will :
lie blotted out by the DONNA ut party, to t
accomplish their purposes. Any blow they a
make at the Constitution, gives US strength. e
bur only hope is q firm adherence to the o
constitution. If we are to have servile d
judiciary, stbservient to the will of the d
ominant party in Congress, without vir- t;
ne. and destitute of independence, the d
Ooner we know it, the better. For one, l n
10 not believe it. Il
A great many persons who have written II
N this subject, have pronounced them e.
elves disfranchised by this bill. But is it b
D? By the general proclamation of tue Il
resident, all have been pardoned below L
ertain grade, and numbers of special par I'll
ons have been made. The legislative de- O.
artment cannot place these parties under c
ne ban of the law again. Chancellor il
.ent, vol. l, p. 2S4, of his Commentaries, tt
avs: o.
1.-THE power of pardon, vested in the st
resident, is without any limitation, eX-
ept in the single case of impeachment" tt
And the Supreme Court, by a decision az
endered on the 18th of January last, at le
Washington, under the same roof where +
ongress held its session, has settled the W
uestion. The court says Justice Field II
the opinion of the court: Q
The Constitution provides that the
resident shall have mower to grant re- | nc