The Bossier banner. [volume] (Bellevue, Bossier Parish, La.) 1859-1952, 1871-09-16
The Supreme Court and
Amendments.

not many Republicans who believe
that the late constitutional amend
nents and the reconstruction acts
were .constitutionally enacted
that the amendments became a
part of the organic law by legal
processes, and that the same or
ganic law contains any warrant for
the reconstruction scheme. The
whole chapter Of violent legisla-
ton of which the amendments and
the reconstruction acts form the
chief part were enacted "outside
the constitution and there ID no
Republican lawyer whose opinion
is worth the paper it is written on,
who will even attempt to defend
the eonstitutionality OF these
things. The leading men of that
party simply contend that the
civil war created condition Of
things which the constitution did
not provide for, and that that con =
dition of things mast furnish the
warrant for all that was done to
meet it. The constitution was
palpab bly, violated in the effort to
amend it, the ancient aud cOnce-
Died authority Of the states was
mutilated in reconstructing them,
and the Union itself was utterly
transformed by those who preten-
ded only to "save' it.
And yet it would be difficult to
imagine a greater folly than the
idea, entertained in some quarters,
that some day or other, all this
violence is TO come up for review
before the supreme court, and is to
abide its decision; that the amend,
ments and the reconstruction acts
are to be submitted in the shape
of test eases ID nine feeble old
men, and are ID. stand or fall as
they may decide. The Democrat,
ic party has proclaimed itself the
champion Of tie independence OF
the Judiciary, and because it has
done SO, there are Democrats who
solemnly believe that when it
comes into power, it may 60 back
to 1866 and adjudicate the great
questions which it was not permit
ted to review during the dominan'
cy ofthe Radical party.
Oar political history of the last
six years is tremendous in its
significance; but the absurdity Of
of an attempt to adjudicate il
would be more tremendous still
Thejudiciary deserves all the in
depedence that the people can i'm
part to it, and may deserve all thu
authority that the people can con
fer upon il; but how can cour
do for them what they have beer
unable to do for themselves Nay
To put the matter in still stronge
light, how can the court extend {,
others the protection which IL ha
failed to assure to itself? Wha
power has a tribunal that wa
forced to unsay its legal-tende
decision, to decide the constitu
tionality of the vast scheme il
which the legal-tender issue wa
only part2
Our judicial history of the las
few years has been of nature t,
dispel the fond old delusions W
were once accustomed to entertain
about supreme courts. The inexoI
able aud passionless power WhicI
we once imputed to them has me-
ted into mist at the menace OF rea
force. The supreme court a
Washington has permitted case
TO be removed from its docket
while it was celebrating them; j
has been forced to contradict il
solemn decisions; and it has beef
Inundated by threats, by inter
ference, and by forestalling anuul
ments of its anticipated DEGREES
until il is but the feeble shadow o
its former self. 1t is remarhabl
fact that it has dared to give bu
asingle decision unwelcome to th
party in power, and that one
was made 70 retract. The sam
may be said OF the supreme eouI
of our own state. The palpabl
unconstitntionalities Of the Drak
constitution were affirmed by i
and no notable ease of pOpEla
wrong inflicted by it in which th
interests of the dominant part
seemed to be involved, was col
demned.
But the constitutional ament
ments and the RECONSTRUCTED
acts are beyond the reach of th
Judiciary; it has no right to revie
and decide them, even if dared +
ftaa Daruocratie marty were