Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1873-07-03
Gutland Daily 9rald.
rUERUTLAND HERALD.
FRIDAY. JUNE 81. 1875.
,D,vGEROus USUnPATION.

DANGEROUS tSUhPhAhoN'
The powers Of the government, both
,,,;anal and in the several States, are
r.tributcd among three separate depart
o,rpts-the legislative, executive and
.n3rtaI. Each are separate, distinct and
viplndcnt in their several spheres, sub
.rt unIyto tie constitution. They can
oofmtcrfcre with each other, only as the
naurr is conferred upon them by the
same ..mic law. The legislative de
,Yrnucal has the sole right of enacting
.u,. aud they cannot delegate their au-
toglry to others, neither can the right
l.a,.umod by others Their power is
m.ral-if limited it can be called-in
,a, ways. The chief executive has a
u.afI veto, but the Legislature can,
Notwithstanding the executives objec-
eans. pass a proposed law over his veto
wactments, to become valid laws
mn- conform to, not conflict with, the
ummic law The judicial department
a.n. in appropriate methods. pronounce
a legislative measure invalid and of no
effect. for this reason and for this alone.
With these exceptions, the Legislature
{, ,supremc in its sphere. This right on
the nart Of the executive, and this pow
trof the judiciary are, after all, nolimi-
aton. in effect, or interference with
Me distinct sphere or independence of
the legislative branch of the govern
mrut. because. in the one case, they can
enact the law in spite of the executive,
anJ ia the other, they have exceeded
their powers, and no attempt is made to
limit thciraction. Soft is with the eXecu-
tive and judicial departments, they are
each separate from the other two, and
independent in their several spheres.
The Legislature, under the constitution,
from which they each derive their
separate powers-cannot interfere with
them or either of them, or their actions.
If. however, they exceed their powers,
violate the constitution, or become cor
upt or oppressive, the Legislature can,
v mpcachmcnt,- and only by impeach-
manr-rrmove them. Neither can this
mclllcd an interference of one depart
mrm with another The care with
which our fathers undertook to separate
tucdifferent departments of the govern
mcut and to render each Independent OF
lbc other was taught them by bitter eX-
pericncc. They did their work wisely
and well, and we should not depart
'bcrcfrom, in this respect at least.
A dangerous precedent, however,-if
we shall allow it to become precedent
has been established, or endeavOred to
be established, by certain members of
tao New York Legislature, to which we
desire to call attention. We received,
yesterday, what purported to be, and
what in fact was, a report from the ma
iority of a committee of that body in
reference to the petition of one English.
We have nothing to do with English or
his prosecutors, and we care nothing
about him. We know not, and, for our
present purpose, care not, whether the
alleged facts, asserted in this so-called
report, are facts or falsehoods. We have
no interest in the insurance war,
which has been progressing in New
York for some time, save in the hope
and belief that the truth and right will
ultimately prevail. We are interested,
however, in the preservation ofour form
Of government, the independence OF the
Observation-Disclosures Of the government,
and in the question whether the powers OF
the one shall be usurped by another.
By the constitution of the United States,
questions of facts, involved in matters
Of litigation, are to be determined by
courts of law. This is, also, declared to
be fundamental principal in the consti-
tuton of New \ ork and all other States.
The right Of "trial by jury" it is de-
clared, ''shall remain inyiolate forever,
except that in civil cases, the right tC
such trial NAV be waived by consent OF
both parties. The trials of issues OF
fact, then, is the sole prerogatiye OF
courts-that is, of the judicial depart
mcnt. 1t appears, from this report, thai
this English has been indicted for an al
legged libel, and that he has not beer
tried, but that his trial is to take
place hereafter. 1t being a crimina
Prosecution, and the same would be true
in a civil suit, he was arrested and helC
to bail, being unable to procure which
he was committed to Jail. He claimed
that the bail was excessive, and, it is true
that, by the constitution, excessive bal
shall not be required, yet who is to de
termine that question in the frs
place? 1t being a question of law
as well as of fact, it would seen
10 be beyond controversy, that i
belonged solely to the courts. If thu
Judges thereof act oppressively, unjust
ly or unconstitutionally, they can be i'm
peached, punished and removed from
Office No attempt, however, is mad
1or their impeachment, and no reques
Is made to the court, fixing the bail, TO
reduction thereof The remedy i
either case was ample, and at hand. /
writ OF habeas corpus would have take,
this man to any and every court of til
State for the reduction of his bail, if j
was excessive. We may concede, fo
the sake OF the argument, that it wa