New-York tribune., 1868-03-31

vote Of both Houses p due form tS veto RSutas ey tSs
President, reconsideration by ootn The S Con.
sttution substitutes this reconsideration and pas
sage equivalent to the PsedehIs fsast seEecute
the law whether In fact constitutional or not for @
President refuse to execute law duly passed sS
he thought ID unconstitutional after nc hau VeOeu ~ IL
that reason would in effect. be Tor hun 10 execute h
veto and leave the law unexecued IL may % 20 he im
reached for violating his oath Of Office as Is now being
done IT, indeed laws duly passed by C9ngress ~ ,
people had been commonly, or as nsag opd ue,
eared by the Supreme Court unconstitutional @ ana
therefore, imperative, there might seem to De so'ae
paiation if not justification to the Exeeluye 40 ~
refuse to execute q law in order to nave odns ms
conSltutonaty tested by the court IL is pose be
such shadow OF justification 10 the Executive, poVue
at the same time conceiyes an e9a in tbe
representatives of the people and in the senate oI TUG
United States but both cOneepons are 80 W
ble and absurd rs not TO furnish GROUND, VI
mental action. How stands the tactf has the supreme
Court frequently declared the laws OF Congress III
fict with tho Constitution afford the President just
ground for belief hope even that the court WIZ 90 80
legal fact that since the first decision OF the Supreme
Court till the day Of this arfagnmeh, 10 ~" NV
ever, by the Judgment OF that court, DtSn
aside held for naugt, because OF
as the groundwork of its decision In three eases oy
has the judgment OF that court been influenced py te
supposed conflict between the law ana the CONSTITUTION,
duties, and where the law seemed To interfere VIII es
own prerogatyes. Touching privileges ana prerogat.es
has been the shpwreek OF many wn9les9n0 no iI" ~
the SPOT the sensitive nerve, OF all tlDlhs paa
mcntary or judicial The first case questioning tue Vad
ify Of law of Congress HayDurn q Das 4Os, mere
s court decided upon the unconstutonay OF the act
of March 23 I792 Statutes at Large, vol Up 2 whcH
conferred upon the court the power 70 decide upon s
grant certificates OF invalid pensions. Inc court court
held that such power could not DC conferred upon
the court as original jurisdiction, lne
court receiving all its original jurisdiction from
the provisions OF the Constitution This decision would
be nearly unn,egbe were Il not N T'g @ 10
reporting United states ag Todd, decided FEB -, lIgL
inteligibity OF the decision in Hayburns case When
the question up at the Circuit Court In New
York Judges being Of opinion that the aw could not
be executed by them Judges, because was uncons
tutonal yet determined t0 obey IL ntl the case could
To violate the law did execute Commissioners until IL
repealed, which was done next year The Judges on
that their convictions OF duty did not permit them 10 exc
fSis oas special S A@ care that this letter should
pany their decision, so that they might not De
misunderstood. Both examples tw0uld have Deep wen
for tins respondent TO have followed before he undertook
10 set himself 10 violate act OF Congress The next
the Constitution and the law If Gordon agt the ueu
States, tried in April 1861 II years aiterwaT two JUS
Court The Court here dismissed an appeal from the
Court OF Claims. alleging that under the CONSTITUTION no
or Claims under an aet OF Congress Wch gave IaSsoiy
power to the secretary or the Treasury over occs0 OF
the Court OF cams rov Tni GsGl5Sn nnt aygument ms
or authority cited The next case Is ~ Parie
oath caseybere the Court decided that attorney was
not officer OF the United states. ana therefore might
The reasoning Of the Court In that case would throw
doubt the cOnsuonay OF the law or Congress. but
the decision ot the ln'ady OF the law was hot
10 the decision OF the case, which dd not command
uDanimy the Court 1t certainly ala not the assent
OF the bar Yet in this case It will be observed that the
Court made rule requiring the oath 70 Oe admhiseteu
To the attorneys In obedience OF the law unt " came oe
Jore them in cause duly brought up f3E decision s
set aside They did not violate It 10 make
a test Here is another example to this
he Win wish he had followed. may venture to say.
when he hears tho judgment OF the Senate upon the I'M
wherein tho validity acts OF Congress have been dis
cussed before the supreme Court but none where the
decision has turned that point. Ia Marbury ag Mad
Cranch. 1877, ChioiJustce Marshall dismissed tue
case for want OF jurisdiction e1s took 70 Hs
liver chidng opinion against the administration OF JET
ferson before he did In the Dred scott case, SO
dicton. but gave the Government sn1 the people Zee
upon their political duties. In the case OF Fisher
OF q Law was very much discussed but hold
valid 10y tho decision OF the court In United states ag
Law Of Congress IN conflict with the Constitution was
claimed in the opinion OF the Court 0guendo yet the law
Howard 22l, and The two cases, GOodtltle agt hODe "
Howard, 27D Haett agt Beebe % Howard 2jl growing
pns1 the validity Of two private acts Of Cor fess but
careful examination Will show that t was ne operation
anS ad Ss made s the Sa Of ~ the DECISION rSas viii be
sfqs s 81 It's decision 6Pagnsd the Validity or an
act of Congress because OF conflict with the Consttu-
ion aud in each a question OF the rights and pre-
negatives Of the Court or It's officers has been in contro
of Congress has been doubted IN the ooer dietd OF the
Court but not the basis OF decisOn are open 10
arsha had just been serving as Secretary OF state IN
opposing Administration TO the one whose acts he was
trying 10 oyerturn ChefIusce. In the bred Scott
ease ChefJustice Taney-seleoted by Gen jackson 10
the deposits because his bitter paLtsanship
the opinion OF the Court whose ooS
dd famed tie fame OF diSsenson which led TO the civil
against that opinion the Judgment OF the country has
long been recorded When x pare Garland was decided,
SSay Sss o Wch had found thes
way upon the bench, aud some OF the judges, just
rom Ti" ihe ''i bar brought with them opinions
iorbeSr l am nead1s on dangerous sro4oadi nd
Sai Cns enough s allow @
me further 10 comment upon IL In this presence Mr
President aud Senators can II be sald that the possible
doubts thrown three or four acts OF Congress as TO
their cOnsttutonaty, during judicial experience OF
one TO genera'oniS asnnieshs warrant % @
che President OF the United states TO set aslde ana Vo
late act of Congress whatever upon the plea tha he
iona when case involving the question should come
before t and especially ono much discussed on lts pas
during the progress OF the discussion upon which he had
Igled with all hrs power bis Constitutional objections,
and Witch sef careful @ SG Sts GsS 1es
As q Senate of the United States, a malori-
ionay in the trial OF an executive cicer for wuiiv
violating IL before had boen doubted By any court
bearing upon ths hONcNcE thht
removed MIR stanton for the very purpose
Df testing the constitutionaty of this law before the
courts, aud the question is asked VIII You condemn him
for "a crime for doingi III this plea true
L ought not To avail but II Is subierfuge We shall
show you that he has taken step TO submit the ques
ton to any court although more than year has elapsed
since the passage OF the act On the contrary the Ilcol
dent has Recognized its validity and acted upon IL In
every department of the Government save IN the War
Department. and there except regard TO the head
thereof solely We shall show you he long ago
caused all the forms OF commissions and
official bonds OF all the civil officers Of the
government TO he altered TO conform TO It's requirement.
Indeed the fact will not be deniednay In the very
)f Mr. Stanton, he suspended him under its provisions,
and asked this very Senate before whom he is being
ried for It's violation 10 pass upon the sfoiency OF his
for acting under t In doing according TO ts
erms yet rendered reckless and mad by the patience OF
under usurDatlOu other powers, his