The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-30
CONSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS.

~ST1IUTlU KIN ESS'
A great many people seem to have lost
'the spirit of acquiescence' in the decisions
of the Supreme Court, which, we are in
formed, so marks the law-abiding citizen in
this country. Mr.. Samuel R, Reed publishes
a strong article vigorously dissenting from
Justice Bradley's dictum in the civil-rights
opinion, asserting that the Justice has made
the common mistake Of substituting partisan
opinions for constitutional principles.
The paramount purpose the founders of our
government had in view was the protection
of the rights of man, and, byt the very nature
OF the case, as a necessity to the preservation
OF the government, there is the amplest
grant of power to do this. Mr.. Reed
says: 80 long as the State gov
ernments fulfill this duty it is
we'll. In their default the ma
tional government has full power" Indica-
tions of the recognition of this fact
are observable on all hands. The necessities
of modern compel the ever-increas-
ing Jurisdiction of the national government,
and there is wide demand that the national
authority be extended over the telegraph
and railroads and over the matter of divorce.
THE existence of The power in the national
government to do whatever may be neces-
sary to protect human rights in the States,
although it may be unused and latent, is a
safeguard, and its importance is growing"
IJictOrioal1u Mr. Poad chouS thot oil porfiao
have always held "that Congress had ample
power to protect rights of person and prop
erty in the States wherever made necessary
by the default or hostility of States, or in an,
ticipation of their unfriendliness. 1t was
exercised to protect private property by the
fugitive-slave act, to an extent which in
cludes the principle of a complete national
establishment of tribunals and officers to adj
minister national laws for the protection of
private property. The claim will hardly be
made that Congress may not go as far to pro-
tect persons as to protect their property"
But that is precisely the claim. The Demo-
cratic party held that the constitution
wac arupir W carry slavery into all the Terri
IOrleS, anu 10 allow slaves 10 De TAKEN into
free States. There was no dissent from that
doctrine on the part of the Democratic party,
and a great war was instituted by that party
to prove the correctness of the position. 1t
is a remarkable fact that the only time we
hear of the weakness of the constitution is
when justice is to be enforced. The consti-
tuition was powerful enough to make all the
territory of the country slave, but it was not
strong enough to free a single bondman.
The constitution was too weak to resist Sc
cession or to retake a single dollars worth of
property stolen by the rebels. 1t
was too weak to permit of the call
for a single company of troops to
save the life of the government. 1t was too
weak to issue a single greenback to pay the
soldiers or TO bny munitions of war. 1t was
too weak to permit of the enlistment of a
single colored soldier. 1t was too weak to
permit OF the emancipation of the slaves as a
war power for the preservation of the gov
eminent. The constitution has been notori-
ously too weak to do anything for justice and
right, and now the Supreme Court, by the
mouth of Justice Bradley, steps onto the old
States rights Democratic platform, and pro-
nounces upon the weakness of the constitu-
ton much more decidedly than was necessary
for the purpose of the case in hand. The
dicta of the Bradley decision are the danger
Gus things in it, and not the mere
judgment of the court overthrowiny two Sec
tions OF the supplementary civil-rights bill.
In the hands of a Democratic Supreme
Court, thoroughly imbued with the Demo-
cratic virus, animated by the spirit against
which the people have fought for the past
twenty-five years. the logic of that decision
can be used to ~paralyze the power of the gen.
eral government, and to practically nullify a
large part of what has been accomplished
during this period of radical change. The
people intended to make a strong constitu-
tIon-strong enough to preserve the govern
ment and to protect the rights and privileges
it proposed to confer. That purpose will not
be defeated, though it may be baked and de-
layed. Revolutions do not go backward,
even to the common law.
ANTHONY TRoLLoPE had views on civil
service examinations, and devoted some
space to them in his autobiography. He
thinks the present system in operation in
England, which is much the same as that