The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-06-18

been in doubt, or rather in dispute, from the
very origin Of our Government. Jefferson aud
the Republicans of his day maintained that it
could not; that its judgments could not have
the slightest official authority, either with
Congress or the President, upon questions
submitted to their action; that each depart
ment of the Government was independent,
thoroughly and entirely, of the other; and
that, while the decision of the Supreme Court,
duly pronounced in any case coming properly
before it, for or against the constitutionality
of any law, is final and conclusive as between
the parties in the case, it could have no
weight whatever, as an authoritative judg-
ment, upon either the legislative or execu-
tive departments. Hamilton and his school
maintained the opposite. Jackson, in his
famous controversy with the National Bank
stood upon Jefferson's ground, and Mr.. Van
Buren,, in his recently published and very
valuable 'History of Political Parties,n has
shown that this was the position always held
by the Democratic party, until it was betrayed
by its pro-slavery zeal into an abandonment
of it in the Dred Scott decision, pronounced, as
he does not fail to remind us, by Chief JUS
tice and under President, both of whom had
come into the Democracy from the bosom Of
the old Federal party, bringing with them its
principles, traditions, and prejudices to a
greater degree than they were themselves
aware.
1t is a curious illustration OF the transforma-
tions constantly taking place in political par
ties, that the Democracy should now be the
special champions and defenders of the abso-
lutte supremacy of the Supreme Court. In
Jackson's time they secuted the idea that its
decisions on political questions were to over
rule either Congress or the President. That
Court pronounced the bank to be eonstitu-
tional. General Jackson, conceding that their
decision in the case submitted was conclusive
as between the parties, maintained that it
neither changed his opinion nor had anything
whatever to do with his official action. He
vetoed the bill, and the Democratic party and
the country sustained him. In the Dred
Scott case the Court overruled Congress and
the President, and annulled the political ac-
tion and history of thirty years; and the
Democracy broke itself in pieces and plunged
the nation into civil war, by attempting to
sustain the decision and the authority of the
Court to make it, They ought to learn some
thing by experience.
But however it may be with the Supreme
Court, the Attorney General has not the
shadow of claim to any such authority.
He has no authority to pronounce judicial
decisions in any case whatever. He has no
judicial functions. His Office is that of an
advocate, not of a judge. He represents the
Government in the courts; he is to sustain
its authority and vindicate its interests by
argument before those with whom alone it
rests to pronounce judgment. Mr.. Stevens
is quite right in saying that it would be
"usurpation'' for the Attorney-General to over
rule the law of Congress by construction, in
this or in any other matter. But this he does
not attempt. If it is done, it must be done
by the President, with or without the Attor-
ney-General's opinion. The President, and
he alone, has the power to act, and, there
fore, the responsibility must rest with him.
Mr.. Stevens thinks it important that Con-
gress should meet at once to remedy this evil.
We do not see the necessity. The mere fact
that the Attorney General has given an erro-
neous opinion Cf it be erroneous) certainly
creates no such necessity. If that opinion
should be made the basis of Executive action,
with manifest injury to the public interests
if, on the strength of it, the President should
nullify the disfranchising clauses of the law,
or reverse the action of the military COM
manders, replacing Wells, Monroe, Abel,
Withers, and others, and removing Sheridan,
Pope, and Sickles, an emergency might then
arise which would require the action of Con-
gress. But no such emergency has yet arisen,
nor do we see reason to fear it.
General Sherman and the Indians.
From the Tribune.
The Indian troubles are on the increase, and
General Sherman is likely to have his hands
full for some time to come. According to
Governor Hunt, of Colorado, the war has at
IN forpnid dab1 TrOportiOnS in a