The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1869-01-14

he issue Of the lats rebellion. But il seems
~ dra headed, and We nov encounter i With.
4 the borders Of the patriotic State O l0ve,
which struggled - hard - any other aenle 70
extirpate it.
Il would seem to need no argEmens 70
show that the position taken by the board OF
Snpervlsors of Lee county 10 unsonnd. II
tenable. then the Federal Ccurts are on.
chained by State authority, and cannot exc
cute their own DEGREES. They act within The
states and upon the people Of the States.
That is the very law Of their being. But It
. fusdamental principle that within thsss
ephere they are supreme. Whether or not
they are il the path pointed out BY the Con
stitution and law depends, BY the very terms
Of the insssuuent itself, upoa The sdisdica-
tions OF the Supreme Court Of the United
States. Then, when that Court, in = given
case, has decided that the parties should obey
the mandate Of Federal court, State courts
must Weld. This has been the rule from the
foundation Of the government, and, there
fore, in certain controversies wr1ts OF error
issue 10 the highest court OF State 70 re.ise
its Judgment or decree, under the taenty.nnn
sertion of the Judicial act OF 1883. II 10
nnnu the same principls that the act OF March
. 1aaa, was passed 1t the time Of the South
The courts OF the United States have con-
stantly followed it since their organization.
To take : very recent example: The Bank
rupt law OF 1867, in various ways, interferes
.;th tha proceedings Of the State courts. By
What right? By virtue Of the powss = Con-
grers ITO establish uniform laws On the sub.
;ect Of bankruptcies. 2 Whenever in carry
ing out this power, the courts Of the United
States act upon the courts Of the States, the
latter must eis6 ~AJ, and fr the simple res-
son that the sulhssity Of the former Paea-
mount. Il must be 80 under our syeem, Tor
ii is very clsar, il the doctxine nov sought TO
he maintsined BY the defendants prevailed
generally the sie list binds the States, IN the
administration Of justice = least, would De
severed 1t once. what, tnereioee' tho deeI
PENDANTS ars required TO do in this case is
nothing now. State courts and Judges have
done It often, ana becadss they believed their
oashs Of Office requir6a il under the sixth
srticle Of the constitution, which declsres
that the laws OF. the United States made in
nursuance thessof ~ 80 shall be the SUI
preme la,r Of the land, and the Judges in
every Ststs shsil BE- bouul thereby, anything
IN Tie cossttfafi1H cr laxs Of any State to Tie
contrary notwithstanding.
The nandate issued from this Court 10 .
law to these defendants, expressly decided
to be 90 By the Supreme Court Of the United
States. The Judges Of Iowa are bound TO
obey and respect it. On what higher ground
can the Board Of Supervisors Of Lee County,
in that State, place themselves to escape its
binding obligation :
It il tho undeubted right Of tho courts Of
Iowa, 10 suits therein, to decide ali legal
questions properly coming before them under
the constellation ard laws Of that State, and
the parties thereto are concluded by such de-
cision but when they decide differently in
different cases upon the same point, and the
Supreme Court of thu United States has
adopted one course Of decisions and rejected
tho other, neither the courts Of the State ne :
the psrtes3to controversies in the courts OF
the United States can ignore or disregard the
Judgments Of the Federal Courts merely be>
cause they suppose the right ruling has not
been followed.
Il has sometimes happened that tie Su-
preme Court Of the United States have over
ruled its ewn previous decision, made in ac-
cordance with the judgment of State court,
ia ordsr to follow the euids here set up, but
il Is obvious there must be limit TO such DE-
vintions, and that court has feqnently failed
to see sufficient reason for the change. These
cases from Iowa furnish one instance where
it has refused to adopt the last decision of q
State court.
1t is true there was not DOM plata harmony
of opinion among the Judges ofthe Supreme
Court Of Iowa, nor has there been among
| the Judges Of the Supreme Court OF the
| United States, upon the question in contro
versy between these parties, but that is no
uncommon. l. is difference of opinion
upon the Law among lawyers and even judgel
| that gives rise to most if not all the litigation
| ia our courts. Courts are created to settl
these differences and adjudicate on the right
of parties. Many Of the rules nov of dali
practice in the courts Of the United States
have been established. not by q unanimou
court, of which much of the jurisdic
ton in admiralty is IN example. 1t is
maxim of the law that the public interee
demands, there should be an end Of leea
controversy, and, therefore, when the deceit
ion Of a competent court Of final resort in
case within its Jurisdiction sgivsn, % to that
the door is closed,
| infer from an opinion which has just bee
published Of the Supreme Court OF lows
and which | suppose to be authentic, tn
Judges of that Court Intend to adhere to i,
later rulings on the validity Of these count
bonds. No one can question their right
do so, bat it seems TO me no intimatlpn eve
should be given from which il cosld be II
ferred that in conflict in such case. b,
tween the courts of the State and of the Tn
ted States, the decisions Of the State cour
are paramount.
1t is clear that il the view Of the subie'
taken By thedefandan and it would seen
inspired BY counsel and not discouraged b
judges. 1t is uncomfortable that these d,
/ hov toko hair Utt
out some reason for believing that they won
be sustained. Indeed, they distinctly a.
, situated as they are, they rely upon the cour
Of the State, as we'll as Of the nation, f
support. II is difficult 10 comprehend
! what mode Of reasoning they reached Il
J leonelnsios they. could rely. upon asFsdsr
Court for protec6eA again 4 III cons "a Ssnc
Of tAek own delibetaa lisobedience OF j
orders. For a court that cannot and =
not enforce its decree is shorn Of one of
principal attributes. The Judgments of Il
relator would become valueless without Il
, means Of compelling payment, and when
asks for any appropriate and legal process
i. effect that result the Court ought not to Wit
. hold it.
II there had been any steps taken to r
. move the case to the Supreme Court Of Il
| United States, tho end thst questions
been so great q difference Of opinion at Il
bar and on the bench, might be re examine
the T1Nf6He there Would b. spme erour
!. FOR 1decfnint 10 act. Bnt nothing Of the xii
has been attempted. The parties have CO
, tested unsuccessfully. all these points so oft
I before the courts of the United States, th
. they have abandoned further controversy
: argument, and now hope to interpose AZ
shield the order Of State court. As
!, been seen, such order is Of no avail, land Il
4 hope, to every one Who can examine tba 81
}, fject unaffected BY feeling, must appear to
4 founded on mere fallacy. Other cases sll
i liar to these now under consideration, We
: traASfesr4d from Iowa to this State sor
: years since, because Of the alleged inter.
: Of the Judge Of the Circuit Court of I
4 United States for that District in the gu,
: tons involved, and thus this Court has be
!. CONNECTED With the untoward controvsE
which has arisen between the Courts Of /
O. ri b. E.4z ~