Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-06-15
rHT PAST. rHE GKEAr TEACHES

II u Il -
Suppose there were no Supreme Court
OF the Union. Maine, by her Supreme
Court, holds a particular act Of Congress
10 be unconstitutional. She thus nulli-
fes it within her limits. All the other
States, by their Supreme Courts, hold 1t
constitutional. They have the right to
require that she shall obey it. She re-
fuses. What arbiter is to settle the coa-
troversy? Separation OF wal is the in
eviteble result perhaps separation and
war. 1t is 70 avoid this, that the Consti-
tuition authorizes the establishment of q
Supreme Court Of the United States, 10
decide such questions and settle such
differences. When they established the
Court, all the States agreed, by neces-
sary Implication, to abide by and give
effect 70 its decisions. This is 2 logical
consequence. One cannot be bound and
another loose. And as a State would
not be thus bound, if it could decide
otherwise in its own Court, and hold that
decision final, it has also agreed, by i'm
plication equally necessary, to allow its
own decision, given by itself in its
highest Court, to be appealed from to the
Court Of all the States, that it may there
be re-eXsmined, and reversed or affirmed.
Finally, justice to her own citizens re-
quires each State to allow the appeals in
question, OF, in other words, her citizens,
who are the State, are wanting 10 COM
mon sense and ordinary wisdom, if they
do not claim the right to such appeal.
The law impeached being the act Of al
the States by their joint Legislature, it
can only be revoked by their joint act,
either by repeal by the same legislative
power, or by the exercise Of their joint
judicial power. What they all did, they
must all unite to undo. War or peace
may depend on this; and the citizens
non know what wal costs them. Who
soever is injuriously affected 10 his rights
or interests by such a law has the right
TO take the judicial opinion Of Oh the
States on the question OF its validity, and
may rightfully decline the inadequate
relief which the decision Of one State
would give him. And if he were con-
tent with this, because the decision Of
the single State were likely to be in bis
favour, the other party, whose rights are
claimed by virtue Of the law, has surely
the right to insist that no one State shall
deprive him Of those rights, when be
holds them by the act and grant Of all.
The citizen Of another State, suing a
citizen Of Iowa, in Iowa, may bring his
suit in the United States Circuit Court. /
whence the case viii go by appeal or writ
OF error 70 the United States Supreme
Court. liz can have the opinion Of the
latter Court. What folly for the citizens
Of Iowa who must sue in their ownCourts.
TO cast away that privilege! What
injustice TO them, that as to such Of them
as may be sued in the Circuit Court, by
citizens Of another State, the law in
question may be enforced 10 their injury:
whilst those shall escape this eonse-
quence who can only be sued BY their
feuoV-citizens in their " Courtsl And
what injustice 10 the citizens wbosa
rights under the law are lost. because
they must sue in the State CoHrts Will
those Of citizens Of other States are save5
aud enforced, BECAUSE then can spa in tbo
National Courtsi And thus. bv losi,o
sight Of principle, and in practice wan
dering away from theory, the Stat
governs a portion of Der citizens bv one
law and q portion by another; part or
them live under one Constitution on5
part under another; OF, which wopld h
still worse, a citizen may TODAY
part Of his property by a decision ~ ono
Court that an act Of Congress ia co,,a
tutiOnal, and the residue to-morrov
q decision Of another Court that II
50 and moreover, there woyId n a
law and Constitution in a gtsta
the citizen, and another for the stronna~
This would be genuine anarchy 90 -
would be better st once to have a ~
LEON, to give Us a code and one sv.tam
of Courts for 81 men.
.Seeoad: Where the question
whether the law Of q State is in viola.
zion Of the National COnsthution. II
the violation be in some respect whereby /
sbe rights Of another State or other I
states are injuriously affected, it would
he spprenely absurd to leave it to tse
very State, alleged 70 be guilty Of tbs