Litchfield enquirer., 1868-02-06
The Supreme Court.

The Sentlnet or last week replies at length to our articles on the U S. Supreme Court, but avoids the arguments we urged as of chief importance, and makes no successful attack, as it seems to us, even on our minor positions
 Tn the first place no attempt is made to explain the action of our own State Leg islature, which has frequently exercised the exact power over our own Supreme Court, that Congress proposes to exercise in the bill under consideration.
 That Congress has changed the number of judges composing the Supreme Court, at will, as we'll as the number required for 8 quorum, the Sentinel admits; but main tains that in requiring two-thirds to assent to decisions, in certain cases, 1t transgres- ses immemorial usage. Now what has been the ''immemorial' usage? The English common law courts consist of four judges, each, three of whom are required to assent to decision. Our highest State Courts usually consist of from four to six judges, two thirds, or three-fourths of whom are practically required to assent to decision When the U. $. Supreme Court was first established it consisted of six judges, jour of acAona were required to assent to a decis- ion. Practically, therefore, immemorial usage sanctions the proposed bill.
 Moreover the bill in question does not propose to regulate any power given a court by immemorial usage, but 8 new and extraordinary power created by the consti- tution-that of declaring statute laws un- constitutional. This power of over-ruling the action of Congress containing scores of lawyers as able as any that sit on the Supreme bench, is one of such importance that it should be most carefully guarded; and the constitution itself indicates, by analogy how 1t should be restrained On disagreement between the executive and legislative branches of the government re- garding the passage of law, two-thirds of the latter are required to override the opinions of the former. Is it unreasona- ble to require the same approach to una- nilnity on the part of the Court in over-rul- ing the action of Congress?
 We agree with the Sentinel in desiring the fullest independence of the judiciary, and perhaps it is to be regretted that the President and Congress may at any time, by appointing new judges, control their decisions. The proposed law, how ever, is one that will add to their real inde- pendence, by making partisan decisions an impossibilty, and by giving their opin- ions regarding constitutional questions a weight they can otherwise never have. Democracy" in 1903. 4 venerable townsman sent us in, last week, @ few numbers of an old Federal pa per published in this place entitled, ''The Monitor. In perusing these ancient sheets we were most forcibly reminded of the change that sixty years has wrought in the ''Democracy. We reprint the greater part of an article in that paper italicised pre-. cisely as we find it in the Inonito, of Feb. 23, 1903, (copied from the CowanD for the purpose of show ing how entirely the Democracy" of 1868 is opposed in principle and practice to the Democracy" of 1903.
 ''Last fall, bill was introduced into the General Assembly of this State, for the purpose of granting the right of uaicersal suffrage as it is called-that is for allowing every person in the community to vote at elections, town meetings Sc. Much clam or has been excited on this subject, not on- ly in the state but through the United States. It is pretended that a valuable right is forcibly withholden from one class of the citizens of Connecticut and the peo- | pie have almost been called upon by writers in Me state to vindicate their rights in some more efectual manner. Further south, where our internal affairs have been long watched over with fidelity and sympathy, it has been declared as doubym question, whether the people of Connecticut enjoy a Republican Goue7nment and the President and Congress, have been loudly called pp- on in the Aurora to examine into the sub- ject and alnniniSte1 tue remedy. The people of Connecticut are not used to being alarm by the threats of democracy. At the same time, as the subject of universal suffrage is forced upon the public at the present time. it may not be amiss to bestow a few mo- ments consideration upon it.
 ''The great feature in Democracy which distinguishes the spirit from everything good is disposition to iaoration or change. We have seen this spirit operate efiectually in many instances; and in none without being followed by mischievous effects
 Here follow citations from old Connecti- cut statutes showing that a property quail fcation had always been required of cleo tors, or "Freemen" as the old statutes sig nifcantly term them.
 ''It is however, now discovered by Me friends ofMe people that every man has the right to vote, and that the laws which re- quire qualification are tyrannical, and un- just-that the government of this state is anti-republican, because universal suffrage is not admitted. It might perhaps stop this clamor, if it were known, that in many and in probably most of the other States, qualifications for electors exist; and that