The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-11
Consress and tho Supreme Court.

The fear that the Supreme Court, In pro-
nounclng as to the rights Of citizens Of the
United States, may Judge that some citizens
nave more rights than it is agreeable to Con-
gress to acknowledge, and that thereby the
reconstruction laws may be declared void
In certain points, has hitherto driven
congress into some very queer attitudes, but
into none moro ridiculous than the one 1t
assumes in the bill to restrict the appellate
Jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court, just reported
from the Senate Judiciary Committee. The
object OF this bill is to cover such cases as the
Yerger case. Chief Justice Chase, it will be
remembered, recently decided that the Su-
preme Court must hear the appeal of Yerger,
who had been tried by q military court in an
unreconstructed State, and who claimed that
such trial was in contravention of his right,
under the constitution, to trial by jury. He
had been brought before the United States
District Court on habeas corpus. That court
had judged the military trial valid. Hence
his appeal to the Supreme bench. 1t is obvious
that such trial would compel the Court to
determine that great vital point between the
constitution, which would give this man trial
by jury, and law of Congress which gives
him trial only by military commission.
Congress knows that such point cannot be
safely ventured before non political body
before body that judges according to the law
rather than according to certain loose doc
trines of necessity. 1t, therefore, now de-
clares that all such cases are political, and
utters its declaration to the judicial power
not to venture on the ground of politics. If
Congress had contented itself with the passage
of law distinctly defining these cases and
declaring that such appeals should not be heard
by the Supreme Court it would have done only
what is unquestionably in its power; but in
this warning in regard to politics it will be
seen that it ventures great deal more.
In this section, for instance, it appears to
be altogether out Of its depth :
BE 1t enacted &C., That under the constitution the
Judicial power or the United States does not
brace political power or give the judicial tribunal
any authority to question the decision OF the po-
lltlcal departments of the government on poltical
questions; and 1t is hereby declared that ali courts
OF the United States IN the administration Of Justice
shall be bound by the decision OF the political de-
parLments OF the government on political questions.
The constitution says ''the judicial power
shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,
arising under this constitution and the laws Of
the United States" Now, whenever citizen
is deprived of his rights by any person assum-
ing to act under law Of Congress then
''case" has arisen that properly and necessa-
rily brings that law Of Congress under the
review Of the courts. 1t is the peculiar dis
covery of.republican politicians that certain
laws Of Congress may be called political, in
contradistinction from other laws, and that in
virtue of that name they are exempt from judi
cial examination. While we may admit as an
abstraction that Congress is the depository of
political power, we may safely defy any one to
show how that power has any existence save
in its applcation-that is, except as it is
applied to persons and when it is applied to
persons in such q manner as to Cypress them
and to infringe their rights then surely we
have a case that calls for such remedy as the
courts can give, the metaphysical hairsplitters
Of the Judiciary Committee to the contrary
Notwithstanding.