Gallipolis journal. [volume] (Gallipolis, Ohio) 1837-1919, 1867-01-31
Cincinnati Gazette C0nstitu-
tional Law.

or West We believe it is as inde-
nendent and honest in its manage
ment as it is possible for such con-
Germ, the object of which is to make
large profits, can be. In politics it
has its own theory, and follows the
radical leaders as far as he that goes
fartherest. But these are questions
that need discussion and grow out of
the mighty change wrought in the
social condition of the country by
the abolition of slavery. Before an
intelligent political opinion can be
formed by the masses. these ques-
tions must be discussed and consid-
cred in every aspect possible. In
the erd we believe the public mind
will come to s. correct conclusion,
whatever that conclusion may be.
We advise our friends, if they can,
to take and read the Gazette in pref
erence to any other paper from
abroad.
But once in q while the Gazette
turns its attention to questions of
law, and whenever it does, we are
amused both at its degmatism and
its profound ignorance. 1t seems to
speak with the full assurance of
faith, not one whit doubling of the
correctness of opinions which were
never found in q law book, or utter
ed by Judicial decision. If the
writer would only say that such
ought to be the law, he might escape
the smile of those who have some
smatteriHg Of law, and avoid mis-
leading those who are as ignorant as
himself.
We were, however, surprised at an
article in late issue, headed
popular Government with pro-
tective Despotism." This article
surpasses In ignorance and sudacity
any we have before read. 1t begins
with the following sentence:
''It is stated that for the last three
hundred years the English Court of
Queens Bench has not decided an
act of Parliament unconstitutional
In this country the performances of
the Supreme Court in this line have
been so frequent and facil as to have
created prevalent idea that laws
are incomplete until the Supreme
Court has decided upon their legali-
ty. How mean a thing does this
foolishness make of our form of
Government"
Now in the first place, no English
Court ever did, or ever can, decide an act
of Parliament unconstitutional. The
English Parliament is supreme and
unlimited ia its legislative power.
Whatever law Parliament enacts, the
English courts are bound to enforce,
however unjust it may be. An act
of Parliament declaring the property
of A to belong to B, could not be
disregarded by the court no more
could an act which should decide A
guilty of high crimes and sentence
him to be hung and quartered there
for. 1t is simply absurd to talk
about an English court, holding an
act of Parliament unconstitutional
No such question was even raised in
an English court and never will be.
But how is it in the United States?
We have written constitutions, which
define and limit the powers of ger
ernment. Our constitution divides
up these powers into three depart
ments, the executive, Legislative and
judicial. But this is not all These
constitutions limit the exercise of the
legislative pe.er. Neither Congress,
nor the several State Legislatures
can constitutienally enact any law
they may see fit. Their power is
limited by these constitutions The
constitution of the United States
gives Congress only limited powers,
confined to certain subjects, and
even within those limits it is restrict
ed to certain modes in which the
granted powers are to be exercised;
while it forbids the several States
from passing certain laws. All this
is unknown in England or in the
history of the English government.
When law is enacted, who is to
decide whether the law makers have
exceeded the powers granted in the
constitution? The courts must DO
it, whenever any person undertakes
to set up a right under such laws
against the claims of another person,
and brings a suit to enforce the
right so set up. The court must de-
eide whether the particular law is
valid or invalid in deciding the case
presented If the law is constitu-
tional and valid then the case must
be decided in favor of one party; if ii
ia unconstitutional and isvalid, it must
be decided in favor of tho other
party. The courts have no discre-
ton IL such cases, becsuse the con
stitution is the paramount law, and
any law in conflict with that must be
void, or our written constitutions are
ofpe avail.
1t twill tius be seen that from the