The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1868-04-07

Ree nnc0nostou0nat, YET 00tefml9eu. r~s-
1 until the case could be adju4 1eaeed 1 ~
whole Court. They therefore 4ees : ss,;I
The law, did erecsre Il a. coss llo n. sa.s
it was repealed, which was 80 80
year.
i, nr;,.d i : latter 70 t6y Hxecddv tpdst
- .,,elox;xins, With great r2GIsss ehaf
.h.;r convictions OF duty did not nam
- .recute the Law according to II serm1 and
,sok special care that this letter Ihuufd &C.
sSSffi - flIair- decision, 70 ihat they might
mot bpssdsrstood.
~ aaA,spsesft would have been we'll for
this respondeus 70 have followed helore h.
aiadAstsssk g set hinsclft 10 violate an sct Of
q =. nsst Csc sbese the dourtdes aef pp-
oAAny Gy,.iifct between The ConSiitdro6 And
the law Gordon vs. United States tried IN
April, 1865, eeveniy>one years afterwaro,
two justices dissenting. without suy opinion
being delivered by the Court
The Court here dismissed an appeal from
the Conr, OF claims alleging that under the
Constitution. no appellate jurisdiction could
be exercised over the Court OF Claims under
an net o, Congress which gave reyisor, power
10 the Secretary Of the Treasury over de-
cision OF the Court Of Claims. This decision.
- little saiisfacirs. asr,t y Shoiy Hilhouf
sr1nsneut or authority cited.
The H case is az part. Garland "A Wal
lace 1881, known 40 the AFRO y 8 Oath case
where the Court decided that an attorney
was moi an officer of the United States and
therefore might practice before that Court
without taking ths test oath @
The reasOniu8 Of Tho Eosrt in that case
wouldthmu do y a the cons,isutionsli,y Of
the lss Of Conks~ss. Seut the decision OF the
validity Of the Law was not necessary to the
decision OF the case. which did not command
unanmiiy in The Courts as it certainly did
not the assent OF the bar
Yet in this case it will be observed that the
Court made rnle requiring the oath to be
. iministered to the attorneys in obedience
the Law until it came before them in q cause
duly brought up for decision. The Supreme
Court obeyed the law up to the time IT was
aside. They did not violate it to make .
test case.
Here is another example to this respon.
dest ss 70 his dsty in The csse, which he
will wish he bad followed. may syeatuss to
say, when he hears the jad cement Of the SEN
ate npon the imprach ment now pending
There are several other cases wherein the
validity of acts of Congress have been dis
cussed before the Supreme Court. but none
where the decision has turned on that point
In Marbury Va. Madison l Cranch, 1870,
Chief Justice Marshall dismissed the case for
want of jurisdiction, but took opportunity to
deliver chidiug opinion gAinst the admin
istratioa Of JsAersoH before he did so.
In The bred Scott case, so familiar 10 The
public. the court decided it had no jarisd,c
lion, but gave the government and the PEG
pie lecture upon their political duties.
In the case OF Fisher VS.. Blightf2 Cranch,
1851. the constiiutionality of Ia w was very
| much discussed, but was held valid by the de
cision OF the court.
In United States vs.. Coombs El2 Peters,
72), although the power to declare Law oi
Congress in conflict With the Consiitdtion
was claimed in the opinion oftheconrt drgu.n-
do, yet the law itself was sustained.
The case Of Pollard rs. Hasan Is Howard,
2l2i, and the two cases, Gocdiitle vs. kibbe
20 Howard, 27l), Halle,s vs.. Beebe rs How
ard. PSI, growing cut of the same controver
az, hare been thought to impnRn the validity
oi two private acts of Congress, butts careful
examination will show that it wssthe oper>
alton and not the raiidity Of the sets which
came in question and made the basis of the
decision.
Thus it will be seen that the Supreme
Court, in zee instances only, have appar-
emily, by its decision, impugned the validity
Of an act Of Congress because ofA cohfsct
WITH the Constitution, and in each case a
question ofihe rights and perogaiives OF the
Courf of its officers has been in controversy
The cases where the cunstnutionrlity of an
act o. Congress has been doubted In the o6i.
Ter d eta of the Court, but we're not The basis
OF decision are open to other criticisms.
In Marhury va. Madison, Chief Justice
Marshall mad just been serving as Secretary
OF State in an opposing administration to the
one rhose acts he Was trying 10 otertarn b.
| Chief Justice.
In the Dred Scott case Chief Justice Tan.
ey-selscted by General Jackson TO remove
the deposits. because his bitter par,isanshit
would carry him through where Diane halt.
| ed and WAS removed delivered th- opinion
! of The Conrt whose obiter diet : f4nned The
| fame of dissehton which led to the civil wal
through which the people have juss passed
and against, The opinien the Judgement Of the
country ha. long been re, orded. 4
When er psrte Garland Was decided the
country was just emerging from conflict OF
arms. and passions and excitement of which
had found their way upon the bench, aud
some Of the judges just coming from other
service OF the Government and frotn The bar.
brought With them opinions-but 4 forbeAr
| am treading on dangerous ground. Time
has not yet laid its softening and correcting
hand, long enough upon this sl-cision to allow
me TO further comment upon it in this or es-
ence.
Such JUSTIFICATION FooLIsR.
Mr.. President and Senator'S can il be said
that the possible doubts thrown onlthree or
four acts of Congress, as to their constitu-
tionality turing Judicial experience of sew
enty Eve yesrs-hardly one to generation
is sufficient warrant to the President of the
United States to set aside and violate any act
Of Congress whatever, upon the plea that Ne
.believedihe Supreme Court would hold il
unconstitutional when case involving the
question should come before ii, and espec;al-
" one much discussed on its passage, 10
which the whole mind Of the counrry was
turned during the progress of the discuss,on,
upon which be had argued with all bis power
his constitutional objections and which, after
careful reconsideration had been passed over
his veto.
Indeed. will you hear an argum emit as a
Senate of the United States, q mai ,risy OF
whom voted for that very bill. upon il con-
s,itnfi lily in the triA Of IN executive offi-
Ger for wiifuliy violating it before it had been
doubted By any court?
Bearing upon the question. however, it may
be said that the President removed Mr. STAN
ton for the very purpose of testing the con
etitutionaity oil this law before the courts.
and the question is asked, will You condemn
him as for . crime for so doing? II this plea
were . true one it ought not TO avail; but it
is q subterflge., Ws shall shovs roo that he
has taken no step 70 submit tho question to
any court, although more than year hsa
elapsed the passage of the act
ANOTHER EsroPPEI.
On the contrary, the President has recoe-
nizad Its validity, and acted upon il in eyery
department of the government, save in The
War Department and there. except in re-
gard to the head thereof solely. We shall
show you he long ago caused all the forms Of
coTniissions and official bonds Of eli he civil
officers Of the Government to be aItered to
confarn to its requirements. Indeed, the
fact will not be denied may. in the very case
of Mr. Stanton, he suspended him under i,s
provisions. and asked this very Senate, be.
fore whom he is now berg fried for it's v,ola-
ton, to pass upon the sufficiency Of his rea-
sons for acting under ii in so doing accord
ing to its terms yet, rendered reckless and
mad by the patience Of Congress uSder his
usnrpation of other powers and bis disre.
gard OF other laws. he boldly avows, in his
letter to the General Of be army, that he in
tends to Disregard its provisions, and sum
mons the commander Of The trpops of this
Department, 10 sedure him frum his dnsy 50
as to be able to command. in VIOLATION Of
another act OF Congress, sufficient military
power 10 enforce his unwarrzn.td DEGREES. i
he ffesidehS kssws D. oSghts 10 haze
known, his official adviser. who nov appears
~ his counsel could, and did Tell him. doubf