Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-05-03

represented by them, ana they had no au-
thority, by pronouncing one word, veto, to
stop every ordinance OF the Senate, to stop
the execution of every law, absolutely and
conclusively, without any appeal. That
power was called by Cesar uztinaa jas 1Ei-
J,m0rum. What is this, your Honors, but
that Here upon the passage of an act of
Congress, before single step is taken to-
wards its execution, before any case arises,
before any individual is hurt, before any
parties appear comes the State of Georgia
and makes parties ofthOse who have not as
yet executed the law, but who threaten to
execute it-that is, those upon whom the
law imposes the duty of e1ecution-and
asks this court to stop the execution of the
law, to decree that it is dead letter, to say
that nothing shall be done under it, to say
1--WE veto it =; we forbid it." Is not that alb
solutely SO
If this can be done, the same jurisdiction
may be invoked wherever you can get nom
inal parties may be invoked in regard to
every law that Congress may pass before 1t
proceeds to execution, and before as yet a
case has arisen under it. If there is pow
er in this court to veto laws which the peo-
pie consider wholesome and necessary, and
instruct their representatives to pass, it Is
high time that they should know it but
such a power has never before been in
voked. This is not the first occasion on
which the people have Laen convulsed from
one end of the Union to the other on the
question of the cOnstitutionality and eX-
pediency of a law. Tarifflaws, annexation
laws, and-it would take me Il long while
to go to the end of the chapter-laws Of va
rious kinds have been passed again and
again by Congress DIS to which there were
questions of cons!itutiOnality and proprle-
ty. If there was always power here III
lN,0fr, how,
to practice, before any case had risen I'M
der them, it is curious thing that this
court was never before invoked on such an
occasion that, on the contrary, the people
thought the only way to deal with those
laws, if they did not approve of them, was
| to send new members who would act upon
them to suit the views of the people. That
was their relief ; or if the laws were uncOn
stitutional, the people waited until a case
arose, until some individual was affected
! by them, and appealed to the courts for
redress. Oar laws operate on individuals,
and have their virtue and efficacy in opera
ting on individuals. When in the case Of
some individual the general nuisance Of Il
bad law becomes a special nuisance, he may
bring it before the judiciary.
Such q suggestion was made III the Con-
vention that framed the Constitution. The
scheme then presented was not half so bad
as this but something like it was proposed
by Mr. Randolph, the elder In the Con
vention he offered this resolution
8 ReSolred, That the executive and a conve-
nient number of the national Judiciary ought to
compose a council of evision, with auth GRITTY to
examine every act of the national legislature be-
fore it shall operate, and every act OF particular
Legislature before negative thereon shall be
final and that the dissent of the said council shall
amount to rejection unless the act oft the nation
al Legislature be again passed. or that OF part1-
cular Legislature be again negatiyed, by --
of the members of each branch"
/ Here was an attempt to give qualified
veto power, to be vested not in the Judicial
ry alone, but in the Judiciary with the ex-
ecutive, sitting as d council Of revision up
on every law after its passage, before it had
/ gone into operation, before its mischiefs
were developed. It found no favor with
the Convention; it was rejected; and instead
/ of that, the actual veto power as 1t now eX-
! lists, proposed by General Pinckney, was
adopted instead, divorcing the judiciary
! from the consideration of such questions,
/ leaving them to consider law only when
| it should regularly come before them in its
/ execution upon proper case and with pro-
per parties.
Your Honors will see upon this point that
[ claim that this case is premature; that the
controversy, whatever it may be, has not
/
sy with party, not a controversy with the
| law; they must show an individual right,
not a general public right. This court does
not sit as conservators over public rights,
and as such to guard them in the very be-
/ ginning against the execution OF an ODnOX-
iOus law 1t sits only in controversy af-
! ter controversy has arisen. 1t there was
no other objection to the case, this would
be snfficient-namely, that no controversy
has ever arisen under this law with any
party, citizen of State, public officer, or
anybody else. In homely language, they
have leaped before they came to the stlle;
they have cried out before they were hurt.
! do not say that a time may not come,
that circumstances may not arise, when,
under the operation of these laws, parties,
citizens having rights in which they are en-
titled 30 be protected, may not bring the
matter here for the decision of this court.
Whenever it is brought, the court, l trust,
will not shrink from it; but until it is
brought, [ as fervently hope this court will
not overstep its Jurisdiction. | trust the
court will never agree to take hold Of such
| jurisdiction until it comes regularly, and
never to agree to dodge it when it does
come.
Next, let me ask, upon the ordinary jul
risdiction of court of equity, what sort OF
! case nave lhy 1eaIutu 1I1CHoo Ho!0
Equity lawyers of great standing I know
them to be, but if am right, if [ have any
conception of equity relief, how far does
their case fall short of any relief ever given
by court of equity? We may make mis-
takes in our anxiety to carry point some
times. [ think my learned friends, as
equity draughtsmen, have done so in this
case. Considering who signs this Georgia
bill as solicitor and counsel, l was very
much surprised on examining it to find
that there was not SO much as prayer that
the defendants should answer. OF course
[ make no point now on the absence OF
that necessary prayer. l simply state it to
show how, in the pursuit of particular
thing, we are apt not to go upon the due
tates of our calm and sober judgment, and
sometimes to attempt to stretch the law
further than it can go. But upon the gen
eral doctrines of equity law as to the suf-
ficiency of a bill to bring a case within the
jurisdiction of the court for equitable re-
lief, let us look for moment at this bill.
This is bill in equity brought by a
State. I admit that State can sue in
equity and at law. 1t is a bill by State