The New York herald., 1868-03-26

.E fAEElaE 49, stEtE Ft Nkttt II e
reconsidered and the bin again referred 70 the Com
mittee on Appropriations. ~ #Ee
Veto Message Of the President.
On motion OF Mr.. WILLIAMS, lrep) OF Oregon, the
Senate proceed TO the consideration of the Pres-
dents veto OF the bill TO amend the Judiciary Act OF
1883. The message wal then read, as f0llows:-
To TIE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES III IS
have considered with such care as the pressure
OF other duties has permitted q bill entitled "An
act TO amend the Judiciary act passed on the 27th
OF December, 17s9.n Not being able to approve all
its provisions, herewith return 1t to the Senate In
which house 1t originated with brief statement OF
my objections. The first section Of the bill meets
my appreciation. as, for the purpose Of protecting
the rights OF property from the erroneous decisions
Of inferior judicial tribunals 1t provides means for
obtaining uniformity by an appeal to the Supreme
Court OF the United States In which have now
become very numerous and OF much public interest,
and IN which such remedy is not now allowed. The
second section, however, takes away the right OF ap-
peal to that court in which involve the life and
liberty of the citizen and leave them exposed to the
Judgment OF numerous inferior tribunals 1t is ap-
parent that the two sections conceived In very
different spirit and regret that my objection to one
imposes upon me the necessity OF withholding my
sanction from the other. cannot give my assent to
measure which proposes to deprive any person,
restrained Of his or her liberty, in violation of the
constitution or Of any treaty or law of the United
States, from the right Of appeal to the highest
judicial authority known to our governments.
TO secure the blessings OF liberty to ourselves
and our posterity one Of the declared objects Of
the federal constitution. To assure these guarantees
are provided in the same instrument as wen as
against unreasonable searches and seizures, as
against the suspension OF the privilege OF the writ OF
habeas corpus, unless, when in Of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require 1t. 1t was
doubtless to afford the people the means Of protect
ing and enforcing these inestimabe privileges that
the jurisdiction which this bill proposes to take
away was conferred upon the Supreme Court Of the
nation. The act conferrng that Jurisdiction was ap-
proved on the 5th day OF February, 1867 with full
knowledge OF the motives that prompted its passage
and because 1t was believed to be necessary and
right. Nothing has since occurred to disprove the
wisdom and justice Of the measure, and to modify
1t s now proposed would be to lessen the protection
OF the citizen from the exercise Of arbitrary power
and to weaken the safeguard Of life and liberty,
which can never be made too secure against illegal
encroachments. The bill not only prohibits the adju-
dicatiOn by the Supreme Court Of In which ap
peas may hereafter be taken, but interdcts its jurs-
diction on appeals which have already been made to
come law, 1t WILL by its retroactive operation wrest
from the citizen q remedy which he enjoyed at the
time of his appeal. 1t win thus operate most harshly
upon those who believe that justice bas been denied
them in the inferior courts The legislation pro-
posed In the section, it seems to me-
is not in harmony with the spirit and
intention Of the constitution. It cannot fail to
effect most nuriously the just equipose Of our sys-
tenn OF government, for it establishes precedent
which II followed may eventually sweep away every
check on arbitrary and unconstitutional legislation
OF the government The Supreme Court Of the United
States has been viewed by the people the true ex-
FOUNDER OF the constitution, and In the most violent
party conflicts its judgment and DEGREES have always
been sought and deferred to with confidence and re.
spect In public estimation. 1t combines judicial
wisdom and impartiality in q greater degree
than any other authority known to the
constitution and any act which may
be construed into or mistaken for an
attempt to prevent or evade Its decisions on q
question which affects the liberty Of the citizens and
agtates the country cannot fail to be attended with
unpropritous consequences. It win be justly held
by large portion Of the people as an admission Of
the unconstitutionaty Of the act on which is judg
ment may be forbidden or forestaIled, and may In
terfere with that wiling acquiescence In its provi-
sons which rs necessary for the harmonious and en-
cient execution Of any law. For these reasons thus
brieny and imperfectly stated, and for others, OF
which want Of time forbids the enumeration, deem
It my duty to withhold my assent from this bill ana
to return it for the reconsideration OF Congress.
+ ANDREW JOHNSON.
WASHINGTON, d. c., March 26, 1858.
Mr.. DAVIS asked that the consideration be post
un af ss% one
the bill having been passed after an executive ses-
sion on. the day when 1t was up in his absence,
his opposition to IT. he had not as yet had an opp0r
tuntty to investigate In regard to It,
Mr.. HENDKIcxs asked to have It postponed. He.
under the unusual circumstance from which attsn-
that the Supreme Court had declined to take &C
tion bill now before IT until the will Of Congress
on this bill had been expressed. II that was 30, 1t
the only question was whether sufficient time would
be given to examine this the same other important
measures.
pending trial there was very little time in which to
consider bills. This bill simply involved the repeal
Of an act passed last year giving appellate turtsdc-
the sphere Of Congress. II o vote could be taken
tomorrow, however, he had no objection to reason
Several Senators on the democratic side suggested
the day after tomorrow.
Mr.. JOHNSON, (dem.) Of Nd, thought the public in.
through to-day. The Supreme Court, though they
had been urged to disregard the pendency
OF this measure and proceed In the deci-
cision Of the case before them under the
act proposed to be repealed by It, had determined not
to proceed with In conformity with their action In
circumstances OF acase appealed from Nevada while
It was Territory, pending the decision OF which
providing for the continuance of cases that were
before the Supreme Court when the court held back
the case until Congress should have the opportunity
to decide whether the Jurisdiction should continue
or not. He was glad to know that the court had
decided TO withhold the decision I'm the case now
before them when they knew that there was pend
ing before Congress q law repeating the act under
which the case came before the supreme Court.