The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1869-12-14

Congress was to be arraigned before the Supreme
Court OF nine judges, then, Notwithstanding that an
act might be passed by the tw0 houses alter careful
Of oTsP s y Veto s
law was TO be rendered imperative and
Of no effect BY the simple Judgment Of
might be one way and four the other, and the ninth
maui perhaps the weakest OF them all, SITS as an
uinpre over the sovereignty OF tine nation. The
judiciary once nrmly established in this power
might reason itself into declaring any act unc0nst
tuuonai But 1t might he urged tha the judicial
power was charged by the people with their protec-
representatives; but what name could and ought
70 DC given 10 any direct palpabe violation OF the
ny lt could be called by no other name than
revolution" for its design and probable effect
wo9ta DC an overthrow Of the constitution: How
could the judiciary stay revolutionf The
very ease with which the judges might be
opposed shows that the constitution does not look TO
inc judiciary as Its projecting power against revo-
lutionary outbreak In the halls OF Congress. lne
representatives or the people IN Congress were the
Judges OF the constutionallty OF any measure pre-
scnted Tor their Official sanction. The passage OF
Dill, therefore, was solemn judgment by a tribunal
competent 70 decide that tue legislation constl-
tutional This Judgment was final, and from It there
was no appeal 70 any other authority than the
people. IL might be asked, would the passage OF an
act papabiy repugnanL TO the constitution include
such q judgements The answer was that 1t mani
testify would not for the that such act could
be passed without Congress knowing Its uncOnstl-
the intention of the body to subvert the constitution
would be rs plain rs though the words were written
IN the act this ID an unconstitutional and revOlu.
tl0nary act" Congress would not expect to be
o5eyed In anv such legislation. The speaker further
illustrated the propristy OF entrusng TO Congress
sfscsng the legislation Of the BODY. liz held o.
the title OF The Judiciary to s assumed ascendancy
over the Legislation OF the nation rested solely upon
dietary itself had asserted but which had never been
recognized by Congress. An act OF Congress pal
paby IN violation Of the constitution would mpart
nY nam
tionallty, but judgment OF an opposite charac
ter to be sustained only by revolutionary
force. II might be urged that 10 give Congress q
right to judge OF the constitutionaity OF ITS acts
made 1t In effect omnipOtent. But this objection had
no force, lnasmucb as II was based upon the ny
equally regardless Of their eaths OF ONCE. their
feay to the constitution and their duty TO The peo
PIE. Congress was empowered to make us judg,
tho nation must submit until II changes that judg-
ment AZ the ballot box. And yet tue Judiciary
mere force OF It's opinion. II there was to be ON
Impotence anywhere 10 the government 1t had better
be IN the representatives Of the people than In the
judges. Congress was vested with legislative Sow
ereignty or the nation; the Judges were not
The principle that the power OF the people Is TO be
periodically returned 10 them was embodied In The
which were continually remtned OF their acc0unta-
bility but In the judiciary department the judges
were appointed and held ONCE for life, and conse
quently there was not the same sense or accoupta.
blllty which existed In the other departments The
argument that II Congress could not be restrained
by the judiciary then private rights had protec
ton. was one to be used, II anywhere In the courts,
but not In Congress. IL assumed q violation OF
private rights by CONGRESSMAN assumption
which should share the fate OF all the other dis.
carded suggestions OF Congressional wrong doings.
Private rights har mad jealous advocates In
the TWO houses OF Congress as anywhere else.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
The CHAIR announced that Mr.. Br0wnlOw desired
TO nave read 10 the Senate communication of a
personal character.
The Clerk then read a paper received from Mr..
BrownOw through che Char, respectfully asking TO
be heard by the senate upon what he regarded as a
ton In Tennessee. and mis- personal relations to the
republican party. His enemies mad been heard
through several Of the republican Journals OF the
country. and BY verbal statements made TO the
Senate, and he now desired that the other side OF
the question should have hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPREME COURT BILL RE-
sUnED.
No immediate action was taken upon the request
OF Mr. BrownOw, and the consideration Of the bill
before the Senate was continued.
The bill was then referred 20 the Committee on
the Judiciary.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT.
On motion OF Mr.. TRU@BULI., the bill relating to
the appellate jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court oil
the United States in certain cases was taken up.
Mr. SHERMAN said the Dill was entirely original
that nothing like 1t had ever before been proposed In
an American Congress, and he hoped 1t would bt
land over until after the holidays. Those who were
opposed to 1t should have the fullest opportunity io
preparation.
Mr. TRUMBULL remarked that the bill contained n
principle not already promulgated. time and again
by the Supreme Court. He proposed TO urge Its con
sideratlon tomorrow or the day after
The Dill was then laid over.
on motion OF Mr.. SHERMAN the Senate went fnn
executive session and shortly after ADJOURNED.