The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-01-22


clearly within the constitutional power of Con.
eressi both are clearly required by the menacinp
attitude OF that tribunal, which seems to have
lolneu hanus WITH corrupt and treacherous
Executive to give victory 10 the Rebellion. and
to reinstate the inhuman and barbarous la VS. OF
slavery, which that Rebellion was inaugurated
10 upnolu. Ohless remedy is applied the state
OF things pictured by Mr. Lincoln i'm tbe extract
above given Will be realized, and The people of
TINS country will cease to be their own ruiers-
the legislative functions of Congress win be
t Pe33 PEI, US VIC supreme Court, and the Rebel
ion VIII become as victorious as though Grant
ana sherman mao surrendered to Lee and John
ston, ana Jeh. Davis himself were in power at
the Capitol.u 80 - PO"0i "'
The recommendation about a quorum is oh.
iectionable only on the score of convenience TT
more than one judge should bappen to he do
tanned from attendance by sickness or accident
Important suits might be unreasonably DELAYED
nut the delay would not be likely to benefit the
radicals. The kind of suits i'm contemnIetion
would come from the Southern States hein o.
appeals from judges who had decided certain
laws unconstitutional Until such judgments
were reversed, the laws Ia question would re.
main suspended, and the radicals would he wei
come to the delay. The recent decisions N,ere
rendered by a full Court, and in cases so mpor-
tant judges are not likely to be absent without
necessity. The recommendation of eipbt for
quorum is oflittle consequence.
We come now to the glst OF the proposed re-
form; which is, that no law shall be declared
unconstitutional except by the concurrence of
Iultt-lOuItIS VI lut Whole 0unDer OF lu0Upg
Such recommendation could have proceeded
only from mOmentary oversight of the nature
and functions OF a court of Justice Every sIlit
brought into court is a suit betloeen parties who
stand to each other (undcr some legal name or
other depending on the stage of the suiO i'm the
relation of plaintiff and defendant Betwee n
these parties, every court which is not a scan
dal TO public justice stands neutral and i'm.
partial. The court declares what the law Is
only as the means of netting out Justice to the
parties. decision for one of them is de-
cision against the other; and Justice does not
hold heraa scales even unless she gives
them an equal chance. But to enact
that in a court of eight judges, it shall re.
quire the concurrence Of six to decide for one of
the parties, while two suffice to decide against
him, would be making the chances as three to
one against his obtaining justice. 1t would be
loading with heavy weights one of the scales of
balance which ought to be held even The
Chicago Tribune does not seem to regard the
court IN its essential character as an arblter
between ltigant parties but rather as an arbiter
between Congress and the Constitution. But
even in this latter aspect its proposal is a
fragrant absurdity. Instead of giving the Con.
sttutlon and law Contravening it an equal
chance in the court it gives the law three
chances to one against the Constitution, al
though the latter is Confessedly of paramount
authority. 1t is absurd to make any distinctions
IN favor OF either, except suCh as the evidence
may give it in the reason and conscience of the
JUDGES.
This proposal and all similar proposals, are
devices for changing the Constitution without
the fOrmality of regular amendments. The
Constitution makes amendments not easy, but
difficult. They require the concurrence of three
tourUhs Of the States. But the proposal under
discussion requires the concurrence OF three
fourths of the Supreme Court to preUen changes.
Itis, in effect, proposal to enable Congress to
make any alterations in the Constitution they
please, and to establish such changes as valid
unless three-fourths OF the judges agree to
reverse them, We might as well have no Con-
stltutiOn to bind and restrain Congress- as for
Congress to be enabled to erect barriers against
their acts being declared unconst titutional
And, in fact all the current arguments In favor
OF the supreme control of CONGRESS over pend
ing public questions are arguments against con-
surutional government. The moment You make
CONGRESS the final judge OF the extent of their
own powers, you abolish the Constitution.