Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1868-01-24
The Supreme Court Bill

Speaking Of the bill pending in Con
gress requiring the concurrence Of two
thirds Of the judges Of the Supreme
Court to declare a laag passed by Con-
gress unconstitutional, the Sandusky
Register, one of the abIest and soundest
papers in the State, says
ThgTe IS no cause for~alarm. Instead
of the act referred 20 being radical and
revolutionary in its nature, jt is the
most truly conservative measure that
has been proposed in the FOrtiebh Con-
gress. Even the briefest examination
of the relations which the Judicial sas-
tains to the Legislative branch of our
Government, viii convince the candid
that IN passing the TWo-Ihirds bill
Congress is acting within its cOBstItu-
tiOnaI limits. That it is also acting for
the good of the country, without regard
to parties, we are thoroughly convinced.
The present, or majority rule in the
Supreme Court has not, perhaps, thus
far resulted in harm to the people, but
circumstances might easily arise under
which that rule would place in the
hands Of a single man the fate Of
great and vital national interest, and
possibly the existence Of the Republic
ITSELF The law at present limits the
number OF justices Of the Supreme
Court to seven. In case the validity of
an important law of Congress is brought
in question before these seven men
they are only men-three may decide
promptly and cOnscientiOusly in one
way, and three as promptly and con
scientiOuSIy the other way. Here the
question is balanced, the opinions Of one
trio being entitled tojust as much weight
as those of the other. But the seventh
member Of the Court, possibly a medi-
ocre lawyer recently appointed, comes
in to turn the scale, and pronounce the
law either valid or void. The law thus
declared unconstitutional may have
passed Doth Houses Of Congress by
more than a tWO-thirds vote, receiving
on its passage the scrutiny and approx
al OF a score of lawyers and jurists, any
one of whom would compare faVOTably,
in point Of legal learning and enainence,
with the gentlemen Of the Supreme
Bench; it may reflect The undOubted
viii of large majority CE~the people.
and be considered by them essential to
the public good, yet the action Of sin
gle man, VINO happens to hold the bal
ance OF power in the Supreme Court,
is permitted to overthrow all these and
thwart the viii Of the Nation.
Neither is this q far-fetched or iDlDOs-
sible suppOsitiOu. The Supreme Court
has been thus divided repeatedly on
many important qUestiOns-Onca, at
least, within the last TWO wears Con
referred 10, by simply requiring two
thirds Of the supreme Judges, Instead
Of a bare majority, to agree in declaring
a law Of Congress unconstitutional
Such q requirement is proper, right and
just, and should have been enacted long
before this; that it has not been, is no
reason why it should not be enacted
now. We believe the mem bers of the
Supreme Court themselves viii welcome
the change of rule, for it Will lift from
their shoulders load of resposi ibiity,
make their own decisions more satisfac-
tory to themselves, and give them more
weight and authority with the people.
Tt has beenpr0posed in Congress to re-
quire 2L31HszjHlO1S decision ola full bench
in declaring a law of Cop gress invalid
but this proposition receives no cOunten-
auce, and should receive none. Though
within the letter Ofthe Constitution, the
latter measure would be an unwarranta-
Bile exercise of the powers of Congress
and tend to defeat one of the ends for
which the Supreme Court was es-
tablished. The Two Thirds rule is open
to no such objections, and should re-
ceive the approval of all thinking men.
We repeat it is the most truly conser- 4
vative measure that has been adopted
by the FOrtieth Congress.