The evening Argus. [volume] (Rock Island, Ill.) 1861-1871, 1869-12-16
;pailp argus.
Thursday Evening, December 10, 1859.
RAnrCaLIsM oVEaREACHINa IrsEIY.

We have already given the protes. Of the
Radical German paper of St. Louis against
the onslaught upon the Supreme Court made
by Mr.. Drake of Missouri, in the United
States Senate. DULY eew days ago We
took occasion to dissent in earnest aud EN-
phatic termsfrom proposition by the Chi
cago Journal to incorporate into Mr.. Irum
bulls Judiciary bill further restriction up
on the Supreme Court to prevent 1t giving
decision on the constitutionaty OF the Iegs!
tender act |, had then expressed the opln.
ion that Mr.. Trumbul's Bill was not sweep
ing enough in its provisions. We are
glad now to find it reconsdering its violent
and hasty words, and that it discovers thai
Rsdicalism in its rampant fu y, is stirring q
storm which the party may not be abe 10
ride, and yet preserve US, e'en tne 'n'S''"''e
tat,ered shreds Of constitutional government
and liberty.
In the speech made by Mr'senasor Drake,
md in n. bill, he takes advanced
Radical ground in favor Of prohibiting the
Surname Court, by Congressional enact
n,ent, from passing upon, or in any manner
questioning the constitutionality Of any act
of Congress whatever. Strange as it may
appear after reading the Chicago Journals
objection to the bill before the Senate, this
draws from that paper reproot OF Mr.
Drake for thus taking extreme and danger
GUS ground. The bill presented by Mr.
Trumbull denies to Yerger and others, the
protection which the Supreme Courts decls'
ration Of the law as to trial by jury oftheir
peers on indictment first found, would give
them; which, with the amendment proposed
BY the Journal, that all people be denied the
benefit Of the Courts decision on r"'fo'N
rights involved in the legal tender ee''"ouIo
remove from that tribusai the Only Two SUI
iects-Hfe and rsoperty-oVer when lpe
nsonle have gay need for the supervision oil
CoDr,s AMI vet the Journal administers its
reproof to Mr.. Drake, and expresses alarm
at the tenn per of bis spec hand the dangerous
po.;,;on assumed BY him. Although whole
some fear Of an irresponsible government and
e1cessiys RI d;o-iism are strangely commingl' |
- b, the Journal with theories calculated |
20 bring about Just such results, we trans !
fer to our columns its criticism of Mr..
brakes doctrine as part of the strange
history of this parti2an crusade against the |
Courts and against constitutional govern.
ment:
THE Trumbull bill, defining the uriS.
diction Of the Federal Courts, reached the
extreme limit Of Congressional authority IN
the matter, but did not transcend II. AenS
tor Drake of Missouri, however, in his speech
Yesterday, took dangerous ground. II his
doctrine should be accepted rs sound, Con.
gress wonld be made an unlimited mon
arohy. In all republics, as DeTocquevllle
suggests, power gravitates toward the legs
latIve branch of the Government. This
gravitation needs to be checked by all the
barriers consistent with the legitimate tree
dom Of the law making power. Mr.. Drake
SAYS that prior to 1867 the practice Of pass.
ing judgement upon the consttutonality OF
an act Of Congress was unknown in the Fed
eral Courts. This may be, but it il not true,
as the Senator would have US infer, that the
Judiciary is all of sudden arrogating 10 |
itself new preroynuve. On tho contrary, |
the general principle that a judiciary can.
determine the validity of statutes is as old |
as constitutional liberty. If the Federal
Courts never passed upon the constitution
atty of an act Of Congress prior
81 IaT CO
no case has been brought, in which that
issue was oined. Mr.. Drake cannot point
20 an instance IN which the Federal Courts
refused TO entertain the question of validity;
AT least if he can, he has rot. But says Mr..
Drake, "if this claim of the Federal Judic-
airy was established, then veto power more
potent than that of the President--a power
to veto, not bill, but law was created.
This power would virtually far exceed that
OF Congress in point Of supremacy in the
Government" 1t is enough is say in answer
10 this apprehension that it is now sixty-Gve
years since the Federal Court distinctly and
undisputably laid claim to this right, and
according to Mr., Drake himself for sixty
thr.e years It lay dormant. Surely power
that sleeps so long as that can hardly BE-
dangerous We have had States nullifying
acts of Congress, and heard President of
the Republic talk about Congress as q power
hanging on the verge of the Government
but all this time the buRhear which perturbs
the Senator from Missouri, did not put in
single appearance for sixty-three years. In
view Of this it is simply absurd for him 10
ask, "if this claim of the judiciary was
scceeded to, where would it end? Each
successful effort to overthrow Congressional
action would lead to others, .untll the judici
nrv would loom up as the great central
power of the Government" The real danger
is in just the opposite direction. Congress
must not be made omnipotent. There are
few things wherein no judicial interference
would be advisable. Reconstruction is one
1t is a labor rendered necessary bv civil war,
and therefore not contemplated by the
Constitution. That instrument does not
provide for such contingency, consequently
the courts have no right to sit in judgement
upon reconstructive legislation. Neither
upon the constitutionality of the legal tender
act for that was virtually, military neces-
sity. While then, We urge Congress to
protect the legislation which we are compel.
ed to adopt on account of the war We are
equally strenuous in protesting against suy
infringement of the long established and
essential principles that Fedora, Courts must
hold the Constitution paramount TO acts Of
Congress, and in oil cases Of conflict adhere
to the former.
New Postage Stamps.
The Post Office Department has COM
]