The Plymouth weekly Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1860-1869, 1868-02-06
SEN ATOR DOOLKTTLE.
sAfs Views on the Political Sisua
tfOn. Letter to the COOper's
Institute Meeting.

The following letter from Senator Dec
little was read at the conservative meetin
at the Cooper institute, New York, on th
evening of Thursday, January 80:
WASHINGTON, Jan. %, 1868.
10 HENRY LEIBENAU, and others, Con
mittee, &C., &C.:
GENTLEMEN-Your letter Of Invitation
is daly received.
1t costs me struggle to decline to ac
cept. Ny whole soul is with you, am
with all of my couutrymen everywher
who are organizing to rescue constitutions
liberty from overthrow by that radicalisu
which controls the dominant majority il
congress. Two measures arc now pend
ing (they have already passed the house.
which, if consummated, tend to revolu
tlonlze the government. The first, in di
rect violation of the constitution. take
away from The president the command o
the army and the execution of the law. il
the hands Of the general, independent o
the president, who ceases thereby 10 b.
commander-in-chief. Ia word, it ere
ates an absolute dictatorship
The other measure tends to subordinate
the Judiciary department to congress also
The number of judges of the supreme
court is eight, aud this bill proposes that
DO judgment shall be pronounced against
the validity of law Of congress except
by two-.hirds Of the whole number OF
judges. Two-thirds of eight is more than
five. To be precise two-thir,ls Of eight is
iiye and one-third. As the opinion of a
judge cannot be divided, and must be
wholly for, or wholly against the validity
Of the law, Tie practical effect Of requiring 9
two-thiras of eight Judges to concur is the
same as if three-iourths were required
Six Judges must concur in opinion to
weigh down the opinion of two.
This is placing false weights 10 the bal
ances. This is placing the balance, in
favor of any usurpation congress may at
tempt against the executive or judiciary
The weight Of three opinions
in advance, fixed-immovably fixed by
law. 1t leaves the point to be decided by
a majority Of five opinions only. If three
of the five shall decide in favor of the va
lidity of the law, congress is to be sus-
tanned in any usurpation it may attempt.
We all know, as power always tends to
enlarge ITSELF that constitutions are made
on purpose to defend minorities from be-
ing trampled upon by the msjoritlcs.
Majorities are powerful, and able to pro-
tect themselves.
The supreme court was established as the
tribunal OF last resort; to uphold the con-
stitution as the supreme law over congress,
as we'll as over all else; to hold just and
even balance in our system and to deter
mine the boundary line between the pow
ers delegated by the people to the federal
government, and those hich are reserved
to the states. In the strong language Of
him who has ever been revered as the faith.
er OF the constitution:
The plain fact Of the case is, that the
cons titution Of the United States was cre-
ated by the people composing the respect
i've states, who alone had the right that
they organized the government into legis-
latlve, executive, and judicial depart
ments, delegating thereto certain portions
of power 10 be exercised over the whole,
and reServing the other portions to them
selves respectively. AS those distinct
portions Of power were to be exercised by
the general government aud by the state
governments, by each within certain
spheres, aud as, Of course, controversies
the boundaries of their pow
er would happen, it was provided that they
should be decided by the supreme court of
the United States, so constituted as to be
as impartial as it could be made by the
mode of appointment and responsibility
OF the Judges" ."-4Nadtsoa' Writings, Vol
l, p. IL.
But how can the supreme court hold a
just and even balance between the general
government and state governments, if
three of its judges can weigh down five !?
If, in case Of encroachment by con-
gress upon the rights reserved to the
states, or upon the liberties of the people,
it shai require six judges to overcome two!
Just heaven !! has it come to this: that
in the madness and blind fanaticism which
rule the hour, it requires six judges in
favor OF that constitutional liberty for
which our fathers and British ancestors
have been struggling for five hundred
years, to weigh down the opinions of two
Judges in favor Of absolute military des-
potism, of abolshing all civil law aud civ.
il government, even In ten states of the
union, and among eight millions of peo
pie?
The case of McArdie is that of ci
william arraigned for trial by military
commission 1t is now before the supreme
court on appeal from decision by the
United States circuit cour. for Mississippi
on hoJcas corpus. Congress proposes to
enact that this man shall be deprived OF
his liberty, and sentenced by military
court to death it may be. although five OF
the eight judges of the supreme court
shall decide that such an outrage upon
constitutional liberty, in time of peace, is
forbidden by the express language of the
constitution. He shall not be set at lib
ertv if three of the Judges of that court
shall he Of opinion that the constitution of
the United States is suspended or over
thrown iu the state where he resides.
This McArdle casa is not ALL There
are several now in question under SEN
tence of death by these radical courts
martial, awaiting death-warrant from the
president.
by the strongest appeals to the senate
when the military despotism bill passed in
1867, the minority prevailed upon some cf