Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1868-01-20

Gus than similar distinction IN the court |
II an act Of Congress is repugnant to
the Constitution, it is no law at all, any |
more than piece of blank paper. But |
the propoeed bill makes such bogus law |
superior to the Constitution itself. When |
one party to a suit comes into court |
pleading the bogus law, and his adversa-
nv pleading the Constitution, twice as
many voices are to be required to vindi-
cate the Constitution as to enfore law |
to conflict with it. This degrades the
Constitution from its supremacy, aud
gives an unconstitutional act OF Con-
gress double chance of prevailing over
il. Congress might as well make for
NAL declaration that the Constitution is
abrogated, as to give its own acts such
o superiority.
By the passage of this bill, Congress
would usurp the most important iunc-
ton of the Supreme Court, namely, that
of deciding on the constitutionality OF
laws. Congress decides by a mere ma.
;ority that law is constitutional, and
forbids the Supreme Court to decide, by
its majority, that it is not. The majority
of Congress is thereby made superior to
the majority of the Supreme Court, in
deciding the very class of cases especially
committed to the latter. If Congress
has a right TO make two-thirds of the
Court necessary to declare law uncon-
stitutional, it has an equal right to make
three-fourths or even seven-elghths ne
cessary for that purpose, and thus enable
Chief Justice Chase to counterbalance
all the rest of the judges. There is no
obstacle to fixing the proportion at
seyen-eighths which does not equally
| exist to fixing it at two-thirds. If, there
fore, Congress has right to pass
such a bill as is now proposed, 1t
might equally pass bill which
would make the decisions OF Chief
Justice Chase, in his circuit, incapable
of being reversed when carried up
by appeal to the Supreme Court Nay,
if Congress has right to pass the pro-
posed bill, it has an equal right to pre-
scribe that no laws shall be pronounced
unconstitutional except by a unanimous
decision. A single party tool on the Su-
preme bench would suffice to render
Congress omnipotent In vain did the
trainers of the Constitution attempt to
establish an independent judiciary to
confine Congress within the limits of the
Constitution, if Congress can make its
majority more potent than the majority
of the Supreme Court in deciding on the
constitutionality of a law.
In a party view, we have no objection
to the passage of this preposterous bill.
It will give occasion to such veto as
will make the country ring, and the ears
of Republicans tingle; If it should be
repassed over veto (which IS improba-
ble) the Supreme Court would treat 1t as
null, and the Republican party would
have disgraced itself for nothing. II 1T
be meant merely as menace to infiu-
ence the action of the judges in the case
about to come before them, it will equally
fail and equally recoii. 1t gives the
Democratic party the advantage of new
and strong issue. The independence of
the judiciary, the great bulwark of all
rights and liberties, is involved in the
result of the Presidential election.
The Republican party stands on the
edge of precipice. In few weeks,
perhaps in few days, we may see 1t
pushed over and engulphed. Intelligent
men expect and Congress itself fears,
that the reconstruction acts are about to
be declared null by the Supreme Court.
From that moment the Republican party
will sink deeper than ever plummet
sounded"
From the New York Times (Rep.). Jan. lS.J
CONGRESS- AND THE SUPREME CoURT.
The extremists are reckless, if not des-
perate. For twelve months past they
have been engaged in tying the hands of
the President, and stripping him OF
authority conferred by the Constitution.
And new they are about to attempt the
same operation upon the Supreme Court,
with the view of preventing an adverse
decision upon the reconstruction acts.
On the part of those who share the
views of Mr.. Stevens, the talked-of
measures will be consistent. Whatever
else may be charged against them, they
at least have not resorted to false pre-
lenses to justify the congressional policy.
No constitutional scruple has been
!. allowed to stand in their way. They
have boldly confessed that policy uncon-
! stitutional, and have rested its defense
upon the plea of Revolutionary necessity.
; The Constitution, according to their
theory, is for the time subject to the
: higher law of the conqueror as inter-
preted by a partisan majority. If essen.
tial to their plans, they would disregard
every constitutional right of the Execu-
tive, and make the Supreme Court in all
things sHbservient to their will.
In pursuance of the latter determina-
, ton, it is understood that the House Ju-
dietary Committee have in preparation
, bill making Imperative the concurrence
of two-thirds of the Supreme Court in any
decision involving the issue of constitu-
, tionality. The movement has its origin
in au apprehension that majority of
the court will sooner er later pronounce
the reconstruction law unconstitutional,
and the considerations which have here
tofore prevailed in Congress may possb-
/ ly again assert their sway. For, by
. passing the measure proposed, an ad'
, verse decision will be rendered impos-
, sible, so far as Congress can contribute
to that result since three of the judges
, are known adherents to its policy.
If this project prevail, the higher at
tributes Of the court will be destroyed.
The principle will be in effect affirmed
that partisan exigenciss, real or sup
, posed, constitute the supreme law that
, the court, created by the Constitution IN
part TO judge of the validity Of Congress
; sional action, shall henceforSard be
: powerless, whatever the character OF
! that action may be- To-day the propo-
: sition is that, instead of a majority II
, the Judges, two thirds Of the whole shall
/ concur; to-morrew, if necessary, the
: concurrence Of all may be required.
There is no limit to thefnterference If 1t
, be commenced-no restriction save that
. -l..L .-..-..s.- - tta dornfuaut rarfv