Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-05-31
THE DELIC4CY OF THE SU-

LEL0LG DGLt1
The Democrats of Tennessee have
Gauss of complaint sufficiently num-
err and grievous against the faction
that now controls the State, to render
it entirely a work of su~pererogation
to urge unjust censure against any OF
our present functionaries. Indeed, the
Democrats who, in the present juno
ture of affairs are synonymous with
the people of the State, have nc occa-
sion for ill-considered or unfounded
criticism of "the powers that be-"
The present minority government of
our unfortunate Commonwealth is so
prolific of crime and oppression, real
and substantial, present with us at
morning, Don and night, that to go
about after strained condemnation is
merely to weaken our righteous cause.
Hence policy, not less than justice,
demands that We shall not condemn
without the ~clearest justification.
Moreover, as journalists, we have
fixed for our own guidance the in
flexible rule that in our columns
no injustice shall willingly be
done any one, we care not
how obnoxious, politically, he may
be TO Us. Indeed, it is only by a gen.
eraI recognition by the public of this
justice in us, that we expect our disap-
proval to have weight. We are in
dueedt to this train of reflection by GER
tain censures Ievelled at our present
Supreme Court for falling to decide, in
the case of the State VS.. Staten, on the
validity of the franchise laws. We
are satisfied that the omission of the
Court to Investigate the validity OF
these acts was within the rule OF
judicial %prOpriety and custom. 1t
has been the almost invariable rule of
courts never to determine questions
relating to the validity of the acts OF
coordinate branches of the Govern
ment, unless such determinations a6-
soIiHely necessary in the particular
case. Especially is this so when this
determination involves the re-eXam-
nation of a question once before
determined by the same court,
and which would compel the
overriding, perhaps, of a former
judgment. In the case in hand it was
not absolutely necessary to the settle
ment of the rights involved that the
Court should pass upon the grave
questions indicated. Therefore, how
ever anxious we were to see these
laws Overthrown and the case of
RIDLY VS.. SHERBROOK overturned,
and although We may think that the
great public interests involved would
have ercused the Court from adherence
to the usual and almost uniform jul
dicial rule in such cases, yet we are
compelled to admit that this matter
Of complaint is not well taken against
the Supreme Court.
We are not, however, 50 well salts
fed that the delay of the Court in
rendering their decision on the point
really necessary to be decided, until
after the election and thus withhold
ing its benefit from the people, can be
vindicated. The people were GER
tainly entitled to this decision
at the earliest practicable mo-
moment after the hearing Of the cause.
That they did not get it at the ear
liest practicable moment is apparent.
By reason of their Withholding, great
wrong has been done the State, and
great injustice done the people. We
have heard that notions of delicacy
prevailed to produce this delay. We
like to see our courts sensitive on this
point. 1t is as becoming to them as
the same virtue is in woman. But an
excess of it becomes a grave fault.
We once heard of a woman, who in
sisted on clothing the supporters of
her piano in pantilettes, because, as
she alleged, it was an indelicate ex-
pOsure of legs in public. 1t seems to
US that the delicacy of our Supreme
Court in the Withholding of the opin-
ion OF registration until after the elec-
ton was a similar excess of modesty.