Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1868-03-14

sazxne mez& ee8 An@w ezn . SE23& -
.szuswzmasm waz~sasr . z~p - ~ a.
sus~2@@~z wE& 90 k@m~rrwa~@
zzas zAwm - zz~uvx G& g 49,
80 - 4@m~z@uz zssueu~~ znH Y-&Ess.
- ~~4sz. So rsxs< ~ p~~~ zg~z@ =
-wz~rw - y Hnx@a~~& Fass @--szusr
asx wp~xxssmztr &~s@r~- sA=x rkm
=" Az&Hzzez p~~wr sa.@@ ~x.~u..a b. a.
z~-~ ~ a=~ sz.& ~-e@xv x-s@=< 1zss.<r
sA.s. C@m~asrzEs~A r1< A@~s ~ sA@
Z nsamxA ,sxzsuz. s@& rrwu3s~~ n4s41w-
ew wAn-@ sAAxA De n@z2x smassr
tAa<sr amfhs~TrE- To haS4 fh4s thss
r-zwcr-ozmserrSd by the sxme az-
fksarsry ~hieh cx-ws~rs ur-on C0@gru=s
4E tie tase pS~er whsSA q h@s--e~n
BE esther eHlxrgod os sArsdgcsa. or IN
sHy WY nsdsh~a BY at ~f Cs's.gr~ss.
is SIMPLY % .--ers, tie I1wer oi the
creature IL suPer7or 10 tkst q the
creator.
The mos; plausible and popular ar
gument urged to sustain the propos-
al to nullify the Judiciary is this, that
Congress itself is composed almost
wholly of lawyers, and that their
opinions should have, at least, equal
weight with those of a majority of
eight Judges sitting on the Supreme
Bench. If this superficial argument
is good for anything, it only proves
that the founders of tho Govern
ment made mistake in establishing
the Judiciary at all as co-equal
branch Of tho Government. It
proves that the Constitution needs
amendment ir this respect, and not
that it shall be ignored. The Faith
ers of the Republic intended that the
judiciary should be check upon
lawyer politicians in Congress, whose
views, tempered by the heats of po-
litical strife, they toresaw could not
be safely trusted. Accordingly,
when creating Congress to make
laws, they, at the same time inter-
posed the Supreme Court between
Congress aud the individual citizen,
as an independent check upon the
Legislature; and they intrusted to it
the office Of ascertaining whether
said laws are in harmony with the
fundamental principles in the Con-
stitution, and the right guaranteed
thereby to the citizen. Why, then,
impose upon the Court this duty and
power if they are not to exercise it?
The Constitution forbids the en-
actment fany er post facto law. Is
not that provision, while it stands in
the Constitution, Of greater force
than the will of Congress Suppose
Congress should, nevertheless, pass
an &c post tacto law, will it be held
that the Supreme Coult has no pow
or to declare it invalid? Must the
man condemned Under such a law
die, when the Constitution had ex-
pressly declared that he should not
be held accountable for an act which
was not an offence against any Con-
gress at the date of it's commission ?
Suppose Congress were to pass q
law to-day, declaring the paroling of
surrendered or captured rebels to be-
treason, punishable with death, and
that Gen. Grant should be tried and
convicted under il for paroling Lees
army. His appeal would be to the
Supreme Court, aud he would urge
that the law making that act crime
was unconstitutional and void, be-
cause cx post tacto. But, under the
operation of the new law rushed
through the House Of Representa-
tivcs, tho opinion of three Of the Su-
preme Court Justices would he suf-
iicient to refuse him relief, while he
could obtain his rights under the
Constitution aud save his life only
by having fce judges in lis favor, !,
Thus, while his enc mics ~ouid need
10 convince only three men in order
10 secure his death, his friends
must cou~ince fve IN order 90 res
cue him, II This - not - csm-
u,efe n rsockerv - ever was ~o2<n'
10 ~ y~rT~srzfel IN the nzz@e Il
enEs~hf<n~d frx~3asn- ir - Gztk~zas
90 .s~ wk@~v 80 ~4~.i y % se isznd
myo~ sA< hs~f-~sr F~<s-
IA ez-w~x sAswssne 1f nmsw@r~z
ss~~zSu~n ~snr~ aur xlm@e r@r~Narzxszu
70 sunssr.4 .s&z@zrs. @5 y@xx~ x~~--
- - - svau...ssusss~ e.a No. 1m