Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1880-04-07

tISIONyS.
There is no law, human or Divine,
fundamental or statutory, that com.
mands any man TO respect that which
he believes wrong. The right to hold
opinions is unlimited. The right toI
express them is limited only by the
slander and sedition laws
One has the same right to express a
doubt Of the correctness of decision
of any court of last resort as ke would
have to question the same opinion i
uttered by schoolboy or q chimney
sweep The individuals sense of pro
priety is his only guide in such crit
cism.
As there must bo in organized so.
ciety some tribunal TO decide what
construction shall be given to disputed
laws, whether they direct this, that or
the other thing to be done, we cstab'
lish courts. In our Federal system
the Supreme Court is the highest and
final interpreter Of law. When il says
that a statute is constitutional, that
statute must be so treated by the other
departments of Government until it is
repealed But no Executive, no Sen
stor, no Member, no citizen is bound
TO think or say that the decision is
correct Every man has an undoubt-
cd right to denounce the opinion as
heartily as be pleases-as violently as
the Republicans assailed the bred
Scott decision, as vehemently as the
greenback decision of packed court
was assailed by thousands of honest
men in all parties
! A. and B. disagree in a matter in.
volving the payment OF hundred
thousand dollars, Being unable to
come 10 terms, they appeal to the law
The suit starts in a lower court and,
after years of litigation, it turns on q
point of law to be decided by the high
est judicial tribunal. A majority of
that court say that A, is right; mi
nority say that B. is entitled to the
money. This settles the case in favor
of A., but it does net compel B., or his
lawyers, or his friends, to believe that
the decision was good law, b. must
pay the money, if he can, but he can
still think that he is right in his con-
struction of law, and can put in as
much time as no pleases in dcnounc-
ing the Judges.
Recent partisan decisions of the Su-
preme Court OF the United States have
elected a great deal of comment. The
people have talked about them, Legis.
latures have discussed them the press
has commented on them and members
of Congress have alluded to them in
speeches, In all this discussion on
both sides there has been show OF
strong party feeling, The advocates
OF Capitalization have displayed an al.
most delirious delight. They SEQ in
these utterances of the court the reali.
zation of their hopes. They see the
rights Of the States stricken down, and
they rejoice thereat, for they believe
IN strong central government" a
government that win protect any citi.
zen in all his rights"
Democrats feel, as they have q right
to feel, that the Supreme Court has not
fairly interpreted the fundamental law
They say, as they have right to say,
that there is more of the partisan than
the jurist in these dellverances. They
believe that the Government which the
fathers established is "strong" enough
and that these assaults on the reserved
rights of the States and thopeople are
dangerous.
Believing this, they say it anywhere
and everywhere. They soy that the
talk ofa central government that "shal
lprotect citizens in all their rights" il
sentimental poppyoock, for the Con
stitution leaves to the States the duty
Of providing such protection. Tn,
States deal with thieves, murderorl
and all other criminals who invade th,
rights OF person or property. Tn,
central government has no more to Dc
with such matters than it has with
regulating the winds or tides.
But because Democrats exercise the
right Of denouncing what they believ,
to be wrong, because Democrats say
what they think tho truth demands
we are INDUCED with the ludicrou,
spectacle Of the Radical leaders read
ing solemn lectures on "the rebelliout
spirit Of the Democracy" No Demo
crat has proposed to do a single act
contrary to the law as interpreted by
these decisions. 1t is understood, or
all hands, that the Federal election
laws must stand and be respected un
til modified or repealed. 1t is conceded
that the decision in the Virginia jury
case must stand, outrageous as it is
But the Democratic party will speak
its mind regarding these things. II
will submit to unjust decroes, but il
will not swear that it likes them. II
will abide by partisan decisions, but il
will not say that they fairly interpret
the Constitution. And It will 80 legis
late that the people, as whole, and
not the Republican party, shall be rep.
resented by those officials who are tc
supervise the States voters when cleo
tions are held.
They cry of Identification" the pull
ing whine about "the spirit of revolu.
tion," will not scare anybody percepti
bly,. In honest obedience of The law,
and fidelity to the people, the Demo
cratic party will faithfully strive to
preserve so much Of the right of self
government as Radical aggression has
spared.