The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-08-30
RifI,mond lispatfh.
% i''A'
Tho Nawest Departure.

49,, .ho now amendments are paf's VI 'h'
Isasoro1 Constitution but. unless the!
go los. all knowledge Of the founna1ioh
,,r,ncin,es OF their party, they cannot 1aAe
rh., We NAV call the newest departure
49,. "a nrofess the doctrine that these
amendments arc beyond the reach OF the
Judiciary of the country. The Clnclnna"
Coyo y, erc;al sets forth this monstrous doc
trine in the plainest and most unamb'guous
language. After quoting part OF the
opinion of MIR. Justice JAY in the case OF
Cbisome vs.. The state of Georgia, that pa
per comments as follows
cit did not occur to Justice Jay, ""c , ne
it illuminated the mind OF any one W - j.
Chief Justices of tina: court 'na' 81 In
within the scope Of its powers ~ which
judgment upon the lnstrumc:,.i. ,'nycrs' II
it derives its existence ana us po;; IN tho
is the Guardian of the Constitution I'LL NV
sense that il NAV decide whether any OIL ent
octs enumerated bv Mr.. JAY are rcpushah.
=" thn Cnnst;tutio,i. in conflict with IL, ana
therefore void. But it cannot determine
whether the Constitution Is III cohliicI WIN
itself. or proceed to perform Sufeical ope-
ration upon it, and lop OIL such nvi ,. nt
"a. in the opinion of the court, may not
=
prescribed by Article V: do
The supreme Court has nothing 10 20
with amendments to the Constitution. Soh'
,rress may propose amendments, OF onal
pllcation OF the Legislatures OF t"o-thiias
OF the States shall cali convention 'or
proposing amendments, AND these ANNETTE
ments are to be valid to all intents anu pur-
1o.ns when ratified by the Legislatures, or
by conventions, of three-lourths OF inc
States, The certificate Of the Secretary OF
Stale. with due proclamation OF Inc same,
comnlctes the formula. The court cannon
ro hrhiud the seal of the State Depart
ment 10 inquire how the ratification was
brought about. 1t must accept the Consul
tuition ;,s it finds it, and determine Whethcr
the acts of Congress and Legislatures, when
called in question and brought Wlhlh us
judicial cogniZance, are, or are not, in COLI
1lict with the Constitution. we snail nave
come to an extraordinary pass when the
Supreme Court can set aside any provision
OF the Constitution.
The remedy for Objectionable articles OF
the Constitution does not lie IN that dlrec'
ton"
This is the most dangerous doctrine that
has ever been proclaimed by so Respectable
Il journal. 1t is worthy of the sublime I'M
pudencc of Senator MORTON. In fact, we
did not suppose there was man IN the
United Statcs-not even MoRTON-Who
would dare to avow such. The article was
written by some one who knows but llt'le
of constitutions and laws. Its reference 10
the Justices of the Supreme Court us
"Chicf Justices" shows that the writer
was out of his element when he pcnncd the
article. The opinion which the CONNER
ciai quotes commences by declaring that
the iuhicial power of the Supreme Court
extends
First, To all cases arising under the Con-
stItutiuu second, TO all cases arising under
the laws of The United States.
What does the Commercial suppose the
distinction between these two kinds OF
cases TO be? Its declaration is that the
court may pass uuon the latter kind, but
not upon the former. Did the Commercial
never hear of Il plea TO the jurisdiction,
wherein the first thing the lawyer does is to
tell the court that it has no jurisdiction, al
though the case is docketed, and has been
called? And Il good judge always dis-
misses such cases the moment he finds lie
plea TO be a good one. In like manner the
Supreme Court might be compelled hrst 10
decide upon the validity OF an amendment.
Let Us see how that court might br com
PEELED TO pass upon the validity Of an
amendment.
In the case Of young FORREST, which VIC
quoted the other day, the Supreme Court
decided that the Constitution torbids Con-
vress from providing that the heirs of ii
man whose real estate is confiScated shall
not inherit that estate. Now, if IN amcnd-
mcnt should he added to the Constitution
declaring in terms that Congress might do
what the Constitution now says it shall not
do in such cases, we should have two pro
visions in the Constitution directly contra
dieting each other. The Supreme Court
when Il case arose under the amendment
would be compelled 10 decide whether that
amendment had been made Il part of the
Constitution in the manner prescribed in
that instrument itself, which fixes the
mode. Article Y. of the original Consti-
tuition provides
"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of
both Houses shall deem 1t necessary, shall
propose amendments to this Constitution
- > \ which shall he valid to all
intents and purposes us part OF this Consi-
tuition, when ratified by the LegiSa llreS of
thlcc-toulths Of the several States" &c.
Now every Justice of the Supreme Court
has sworn to support this provision OF the
Constitution. In the case supposed, the
question being raised as TO whether the
Constitution had been altered in the pre-.
scribed mode, the court would be compel.
cd to decide that question first. And this
would be strictly u case "arising under the
Constitution )" because the amendment, il
valid, would have become SO under the op
Grafton Of the Constitution itself.
Ii the Constitution itself provided that
the President and Congress, or either
should be the final judge as to the ratitica
tion of amendments, then the Commercial!
proposition would be true. But in the alb
sence of such provision, the Supreme
Court must decide the point for itself
Congress has as much right to construe the
Constitution for the Supreme Court as tc
decide for that tribunal whether the Con
stitution has been altered from what it was
when the Justices took an oath,to support it
----------------
UsURY LAws.-The wonderfully rapid
growth of the State of Minnesota in wealth
and manhattan il n freuueut s,Ibirct of re.