The Carson daily appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1865-1870, 1868-02-04
The POWER OF CONGRESS TO MAXI
RULES FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

cne Oh tue uOSt lupoitnus Yoos'ioo
which has arisen with respect to tn
matter of reconstruction is the exten
of power vested in the Congress to pre-
scribe rules governing the Suprem
Court As the public is fully apprised
there have lately been some proposition
before Congress to fix the number o
Judges whose concurrence shall b
deemed necessary to the validity of al
opinion affecting the constitutionaiity o
law of Congress. Immediately upoi
the mooting of these propositions, thu
Constitutional Democracy" through
its speakers and newspapers, has assail
ed the Radicals with increased vehe
meuce, declaring it to be the purpose o.
the Rump" to usurp the sacred
powers of the Judiciary, and set up at
intolerant despotism, &c, &C." We
fud in q very able and exhaustive ar,
ticIe upon this subject in the Washing.
ton Chronicle of the 10th ult., some
editorial statements and deductions as
we'll as some extracts from recent de-
bate upon the floor of the House of Re-
representatives. which, incontrovertible
and pointed as they are in support of
the said power of Congress, are at once
instructive, interesting and determin-
alive. The facts of history are adduced
to show that from the time of Jefferson
when Chief Justice Marshal was at the
head of bench composed entirely of
Federalists} down to the time when
fancy illustrated Alexander II. Ste
phens' assertion that &" the South re-
euired a majority of the Judges of the
Court although three-fourths of the
business done by it came from the North, -
(in order that decisions upon constitu-
t;onal question might be decided in
favor of the Slareocrscy), facts, we say,
are adduced to show that up to the time
of tho bred Scott decision the Democra
cy not only accepted Alexander Hamil-
tons declaration that the Judiciary
." vas incontestably the weakest of the
three departments of power" and that
acting upon a conviction of the truth
thereof, and with special reference to
the protection of Democratic inter-
es.s against Judicial decisions, did,
through its representatives in Congress,
place the Court under the controlling
influence of such rules as should best
conserve those interests. And now,
asks the Chronicle
What happens? The Democrats, who al
ways denounced the Supreme Court as a
Federal continuance, from the date of the
bred Scott case, became its special cham
pions up to the time of the rebellion Its
powers were but little invoked during the
way. &" Inter anna Ieges silentta." Sup
posing the court, as constituted, to favor the
theory of reconstruction, they
,gain become Quixotic in its behalf, and
have entered the lists against clearly con-
s.itutional law introduced in Congress re-
Iuiring that upon constitutional questions l.
mail have concurrence OF tWo-tnHdS. (
fails measure they denounce as revolu-
icnary and the very inventors of hs t,co-
a;rds rule in a mere party convention put I
themselves forward in defence of the major
" principle upon so grave a matter as final +,
lecision of a constitutional question. JVhy,
he Consultation requires tvo-thirds of both :
Houses of Congress to pass bill Orer the {
reto h0,o much more important Z.
, it that tpo-thirds of q small body Ike the
;uDrense Court should be required to declare
LI,o unconstitutional! In the first case up 4
ard of two hundred able representative men G
&c necessary to override the will of one-as
ne court stauds on ma jority principle, four
zen NAV set aside a law adopted by Congress O
nd approved BY the President. or passed by d
vo-thirds of Congress. There is indeed
luch wisdom in the amendment proposed by
rat sasacious lawyer, Mr.. Williams, of o
requiring a unanimous court "
declare law unconstitutional. A unani-
,ous jury is necessary to convict, and the
eneft of the doubt is given to the arraigned L
arty. l. it not as reasonable to require . ri
unanimous court to set aside law, and to
i've the law the benefit of the doubt Is i:
OF as reasonable to suppose frailty Of judg- o.
tent upon the part of one judge, vino may q
institute the majority of divided court. as 7,
pom the part of the too departments Uf the :.
ocey7smeHt that are necessary to enact a p
ns Ipl
Following these very pertinent quer- BE-
$ aud conclusions the Chronicle treats
to some extracts from the official CT