Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-01-23

/ Now 1t Is or the PRESIDENT anon OF lns
District Commanders, and yet again o
the Supreme Court. We suspect thai
thew also begin to fear the people il
whose name they act, and whose instinc
tive sense Of Justice FsyOltS against the
abuse of their delegated power. The
idea seems 10 prevail in the RsconstTUc.
ton and Judiciary Committees thai
there is no time to lose. The thing
called reconstruction must be pushed
through, even though it be necessary tC
muzzle the Supreme Court judges.
The New York World, one Of the
Ablest journals in the country, says:
The enormity Of this attempt to tam.
per with Justice in her highest sgnctu-
ary, this attempt to destroy the indie.
pendence Of the judiciary, this attempt
to degrade and subvert the Constitution
by enactiDg that the laws of Congress
deserve thrice the respect which is due
to them-the enOrmity OF this attempt
cannot be OveTstated by any strength of
language. The prOverb, that whom the
gods wish to destroy they first make
mad, was never more fly applied than
to this last project Of the Republicans.
In the first place the proposal OF such
! a Law is & confession that the ~reconstTUc-
ton acts violate the Constitution a con-
| fessiOn that Congress IS aware that they
/ cannot pass the ordeal OF a judicial ex
animation by al impartial and fairly con-
stituted tribunal. The bill so suddenly
propOsed is prompted by the expectation
that the reconstruction acts will be
brought before the Supreme Court within
the next few days. The bill, Of course,
cannot be retrospective; for in that case
it would uussttle every constitutional
decision ever rendered by the Supreme
Court. A ~disgrsceful attempt is there
fore to be inside by Congress to run a
race against the Supreme Court, and
hurry an act through ~inpsiring the
powers OF that tribunal before il shall
have time to set sside an unconstitu-
tionRl law. So many Republicans have
openly questioned or denied The eOnsti-
tutiOnGlity OF the reconstruction acts.
that it is no wonder Congress dares not
trust the Supreme Court to pronounce an
opinion on the subject. But a Dill to de-
prive judges OF their authority is so bold
and 80 wild an infringement Of the
rights OF the court that il will react
against the party more destruc-
lively than anything it has vet
done. The object OF the bill is to
punish judges for PeTceiving that aR act
Of Congress is unconstitutional, by de-
priving them Of their authority. It's
practical effect will be the same as re-
moving q certain number OF dissenting
judges from the bench during the trial OF
q particular class OF cases. 1t is all the
same whether Congress filings out three
judges in order 10 reduce the couserva-
tive predOminance, or whether ii simply
utilities their votes by declaring that
three judges on one side shall balance
six on the other.
The World further remarks that the
bill is foolish and suicidal, because the
Supreme Court has just the same power
to declare Il unconstitutional IS any
other. This, itsays, the Court would I'M
questiOnably do, and the republican party
would incur the odium of passing such a
bill without resping any advantage.
EUery Judge, Of every Court, is bound
by the Constitution itself, and by his
oath, and the Judicial character ITSELF
to decide 3 law void that IS in conflict
with the Constitution. No one can
escspe from this obligation. When one
man sues another IN any action, and
either Of the parties claims a right,
privilege or exemption under any act Of
Congress, no other has 3 right to object
that the law Is nuli, because contrary to
the Constitution, which is the SaDrenle
law. 1t is impossible, in 3 country wbe,e
there is any justice st sI, to make it
the law that it shall require the concur
renee Of six judges to decide in favor Of
Drg v4avF.. eV,E tEa4 Evo ,rl,y r,n.. sa. i
In favor of the other. 1t would be a
great outrage for any Court to be com
10 say to q sutton, 1T is the ju5g-
ment Of five of as that the law Of the
ease is 10 your favor; three Of US only
30 not think so, but the opinions Of the
three must, by law, prevail over those
the five. The five could decide the
in favor Of your opponent bat can
not do it in favor OF you"
1t is said that the opinion of a single
Judge, when the Court is divided ought
lot to OveTturn the action Of q Congress
u which there are one hundred and fftv
swyers. The one hundred and fifty
may have been equally divided,
md q single numscull or knave may
given the casting vote. Moreover,
q the Circuit Court OF the United
states, q single judge can decide a Law
unconstitutional, and no law can take
.wsy from him that power. Yet, under
be new devilment, If the losing party
appeals the case 10 the Supreme
,ourt, five judges against three shall not
firm the decision. So the law gives an .
.pPeal to the Supreme Court at WASH
ngtOn from the Supreme Court Ct
tate, in certain cases. The State Court
a law Of Congress unconstitu. l
ional, by a majority Of one vote. Would
ny State agree that This decision in !
avOur of one Of her citizens, or Of her Z
Elf, should be reversed, by three judges
five? 1t must not be lost sight
in considering this matter, that not Il
aked questions are submitted to the IA
ourts for its opinion but matters Of
ldividual rights, in cases and suits, for g
g decision. q
On these points, the National hateUi. )
alceT says: q
It is fundamental to the very coneep- o.
Oh Of a court efjustice that both parties n
a suit shall have equal ADVANTAGES, 81
be plaintiff and defendant have equal
ghts, and when they come into court o
demand Justice, nothing should be re- C,
.rded but the merits of their respective L
A law which should require Vi
ice as many judges to decide 8 cause 81
the plaintiff as for the defendant, or ~
e uersd, would do violence to all no "a
ms Of equity. But the very point IN VI
ne between 8 plairtif and defendant 40
often the cOnstitutiOnality of law. 50
one Of the parties is TO have two as
to the others one, there is no siC
ual Justice the balance is not held pr
en- two-pound weights are put into ne
e scale, and one-pOund weights into NJ
? other. II is a burlesque on Justice TO So
anne 10 such q manner thst RAJ
llntlhs q defendants do not come sci
court with equal advantages In fai
y trials, although the verdict must he M,
animous, the plaintiff and defendant try
nd on an equal footing. II tskes iusE arr
many jurymen to decide in favor of rio
plaintiff IS II does ia favor Of the de- to
dart. If q law should he passed snb- the
ting this equitable rule, and MAKING II
ccRsent OF twelve jurymen suffice for dee
party to gain his cause, and only lin
At for the other party to gain his, It Sta
aid not be q whit more outrageous fro.
a 3 similar distinction for the court. the
an act Of Congress is repugnaBt to rae
Constitution, it is no law at all, any Of {
e than a piece Of blank paper. But Cor
proposed bill makes such a bogus law me
srior to the Constitution itself. When wit
party to a suit Ome into court cert
ding the bogus Law, and his adver- bait
pleading the Constitution, twice 81 tion
y voices are to be required to vindl- pres
the Constitution Is to enforce q law neg