The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-07-07

"~1e%t VIC " ettS uectstoa may teId 10 tt0teA
orerthroto Of The lchote system of corporal
combinations. The claim made for the coul
to be the final arbiter of these questions {
/ political power, | can imagine no preten
slons more likely 70 be fatal To the Consti
tuition of the court itself. If this court is t
have an office so transcendant as to decid
hnaily the power of the people over person
and things within the State, much close
connection and much more direct responsible
ny 81 its members to the people. IS a Recessar
condition for the safety Of popular rights.
Justice Woodbury., in luther vs.. Borden
How, %, has exposed this danger witt
great discrimination and force. He said
Another evil, dlaraiag and little foreseen
involved in regarding these as questions fol
the mai drbitraaaeat of judges, would, in
dispute among the people, depend on or,
decision fnGug. We would possess the
power to decide against them, as well a,
for them; and under prejudiced or arbi-
trary judiciary, the public liberties or popu
Tar privileges might thus be much perverted
II not entirely Frustrated. And If the peo-
pie in the distribution of power under the
Constitution, should ever think of making
judges supreme arbiters in political contro-
versies, when not selected by, nor amenable
to them, nor at liberty to follow the various
considerations that belong To political
questions in their judgment, they will de-
throne themselves and lose one of their
Invaluable birth rights, building up in this
way slowly, but surely, new sovereign
power in this republic in most respects
irresponsible, Interchangeable for life. and one
IN theory at least, more dangerous than the
worst elective monarchy in the worst of
times"
The inquiry recurs, have the people of
the State deposited with this tribunal the
authority to override their own judgments
upon the extent of their own power, over
institutions created by their own govern
ment and commorant within the State
The fundamental principles of American
it seems to me, is that to the
people of the several States belongs the
resolution of all questions, whether OF regu-
lation, compact, or punitive justice, arising
out of the action of their municipal gov
upon their citizens or depending
on their constitutions and laws, and are
judges of the validity OF all acts done by
their municipal authorities in the exercise
of their sovereign rights, III either case
without responsibility or control from any
department of the Federal Government.
This | understand to be the import of the
sovereignty of the people within
the State.
A material distinction has always been
to exist as to the degree of
the authority that a people could legiti-
nately exert over persons and corporations.
are not the creatures of the
State, but constitute the State. They come
INTO society with rights which cannot be
invaded without injustice. But corpora
ions derive their existence from society,
)n the offspring of transitory conditions of
he State and with faculties for good in
Iuch conditions, combine durable diposi-
ions for evil. They display d love of power,
preference of corporate interests to moral
II political principles or public duties and
In antagOnism to individual freedom, which
las marked them as objects of jealousy in
very epoch of their history. Therefore
he power has been exercised in all civil
zed States to limit their privileges, or to
uppress their existence means the exigen-
les either of public policy or political
necessity. Sir James Mcintosh says:
Those public acts which form or endow |
are only ordinary expedients
# legislation. The property of individuals |
5 established on general principle, which |
GEMS coeval with civil society itself But |
orporate bodies are instruments fabricated |
" the Legislature for specific purpose,
which ought to be preserved a0hae they are
eRefciat, amended lohen they are impaired, |
nd rejected Dhet then become useless or inju-
tous. Wind. Gal, Is note.
Who in the United States is to determine
Fhen the public interests demand the |
Impression OF bodies whose existence or |
1odes of action are contrary to the we'll
eing of the State?
If the powers of people of State are
inadequate to this object, then their sworn
nd solemn declarations of their rights, and
heir authority over their governments, and
he ends for which their governments were
oY,I
Magistrates to themselves are nothing but
great swelling words of vanity" To
cknowledge that such power resides alone,
4 the Federal Judiciary, would be to es-
ablish the alarming doctrine that the
tates of the Union, over their revenues is
OF to be found in their people, but in the
umerical majority of the Judges of this
'ourt.
Nor does the opinion that this department
an exert such an empire over the people of
Dhlo derive support, in my opinion, from
ne clause IN the Constitution on the sub
sct of TIE obligations of contracts, nor the
ecisions of this court upon that clause of
ne Constitution. That the people of the
tate should have released their power over
he artificial bodies which originate under
ne legislation of the representation, or
yer the acts of their own functionaTies is
otto be assumed. Such a surrender was
OF essential to any policy of the union,
or required by any confederate obligation.
UGH an abandonment could have served no
Their interest than that of the corporations
r individuals who might profit by the leg
'lative acts themselves. Combinations of
lasses in society, united by the bond of a
orporate spirit, for the accumulation OF
ontrol OF intercourse or trade, or
le spiritual or moral concerns of So
lety, unq uestionably desire limitation upon
1e sovereignty of the people, and the ex-
tence of an authority upon which they
an repose in security and confidence. But
le trainers of the constitution were i'm
ued with no desire to call into existence
Ich combinations, nor dread of sovereignty
the people. The power to interfere with
riyate contracts is one of the most delicate
nd difficult, in it's exercise, of any belong
lg to the social system, and one which
lere Is constant temptation to abuse. That
5 exercise is sometimes necessary, is proved
Y the history of every civilized State. Its
ldicious exercise constitutes the title of
dion and Sully to fame, and has been vim
icated by the most enlightened statesmen.
ut the people reserved for themselves to
etermine the exigencies which should call
into existence. The prohibition lin re-
ard to contracts in the constitution is
initiation upon the Ordinary government
nd not upon popular sovereignty. Is
low, $50.
No opinion of any court was ever dis
nguished by profounder learning or broad
views of patriotism and craftsmanship, |
ian the dissenting opinion of Judge Camp !
I'll and his dissenting associates. Mechan-
5 and Traders Bank VS.. Debut Is How,
80. The same firm and learned judges,
ampbell, Daniel and Catron, again dis
nting from the doctrine. In the House
the Friendless vs.. Rouse, s Wall, $50. 7
I'd in the Washington Union rs. Rouse, S c
Yall. 439, Chief Justice Chase, and Judges f
Iiller and Field dissented, and denied the q
octrine. l beg to read their entire dis T
nting opinion.
Mr. Justice Miller delivering it, said:
eThe Chief Justice, Mr.. Justice Field, c
nd myself do not concur in these judg- i
enfs 1t Is the settled doctrine of this j