Litchfield enquirer., 1868-01-23
The Supreme Court.

thirds of the judges of the Supreme Court to decision declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, excites considerable op- position in Conservative quarters. The l objections chiefly urged are that it is an- timely, injudicious, and unconstitutional. The objection that the bill is untimely, because, if proper and constitutional, it is particularly needed, just now, is a point we do not propose to spend much time in arguing. If the thing is Q right thing, the sooner it is done the better.
 The propriety of such bill would seem to us unquestionable. The authority of the decision of divided court is always of inferior weight, although in most cases the public interests are more concerned in hay ing law question settled, than in having it settled correctly. An act of Congress re- quires the assent of two thirds of the mem bers of that body, or what is equivalent thereto; and it seems right that when coor- dinate branch of government undertakes to set aside their doings, like approach to una1imity should be required. But the chief need of this act is to avoid partisan decisions. Judges are still party men, and as long as mere majority may control the court, there must be danger of partisan &C., tion. No wonder, then, that Democratic member of the Supreme Court within a year, expressed wish that an act of this kind might be passed.
 Is there, then, a reasonable doubt of the constitutionality of the proposed act? The section of the Constitution which gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, ''with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the congress shall make,' would seem explicit enough. Moreover Congress, in regulating the quorum of judges and in changing the number composing the court, from time to time, has already interfeled to an extent at least equal to that now pro- posed Congress and the President could una questionably appoint as many new jud- ges as they chose, thus 'swamping' our Su- preme Court as an English Ministry has sometimes 'sswamped" the English House tof Lords.
 We were little surprised at the extray- agant indignation expressed by MT. Hub bard. member of the House from this State, who, as lawyer, must have been aware of the similar action of our own Leg islature regarding the decisions of our own Supreme Court of Errors. The Democracy, in the Legislature of 1852, by an act still in force forbade judge from sitting on the Supreme bench to revise his own decisions in the court below-a plain infringement of his constitutional rights, if their present constitutional views are correct. In 1853, however, our Legislature went far beyond anything now proposed by Congress, The number of judges then composing our Su- preme Court was four. three forming quorum. We give, entire, the fourth sec tion of the Act passed that year relating to 1 Courts:
 | 'sec 4. In all cases brought to the supreme court of errors in the mode prescribed by law, by
 
 decrees of the superior court, no rere'sdI of Gny ruling judgnoen or decree o tue superior court, shdH be had, unless three of the judges hotding sdid su- prenae court of errors stah concur therein" It will be observed that not only was the assent of three quarters of the full bench of supreme court judges, necessary, but in case of the absence of one, or what was of frequent occurrence, in case of his having tried the cause in the court below, entire ,t,,aninaity acos required! Yet this law was acquiesed in till its repeal, by the Supreme Court itself, and we have never heard that MT. Hubbard and the Democracy denounc- ed it as unconstitutional.
 At its last session, also, our Legislature deprived our Chief Justice of his casting vote in reversing decisions of the Superior court, and three out of the four judges com posing the Supreme court, must now con- cur, to effect such reversal.
 We have noticed that certain Conserva- tive Republican journals have taken, of late, to fonaling the Supreme Court. Are they prepared to obey the only important po- litical decision it has ever rendered? Both the Executive and the Legislative branch es of our government have for years treat ed the negro as an American citizen; yet there stands the Dred Scott decision un- reversed, deciding that he is not! Would it not be little more consistent in our Conservative friends to obey politi- cal decisions already rendered, before they undertake to rebuke us for trying to prevent any more decisions of a like character?
 s6pThe Winsted Herald charges us with desiring to shead off, the proposed Fish