Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-02-06
FRIDAY. FEBRUARY G, 1891.
The Savward Case.


We cannot say that we expected tho Su'
preme Court OF the United States to take
jurisdiction in the SA1wARp case. The
case as il presented itself TO US was mark.
cd by features which we supposed would
cause that court 10 turn it over 10 the
other departments Of the Government foI
consideration and settlement. But We
we're mistaken. The Chief Justice an.
nounced on Monday last that the court bad
decided 70 entertain the application for
writ OF prohibition and rule has been
issued TO the United States District Court IN
Alaska requiring il to show cause why said
application should not be complied with.
This rule is returnsble in April.
We shall not undertake to discuss the
points at issue in this Alaska case. What
we wish TO call particular attention to is
the tact that the Supreme Court Of the
United States is not only the most august
judicial tribunal in the world, but is look
ed upon as such by the best lawyers OF
those nations which are first in intelli-
gence, wealth. and populousness We
spoke yesterday OF the wonderful armies
which have been raised in this country.
The conquests of our Supreme Court are
at least as worthy Of worldwide fame as are
the achievements of our armies, The JUS
tees who compose il have always, as a
rule, been among the ablest lawyers in the
land. II il q tribunal which grew from
small beginnings to its present over
shadowing influence over all the depart
ments of the Government. No other
country can boast of such court. No
Other country has judicial tribunal five
members Of which have II in their power
10 render null and void the laws passed by
the legislative department and Affirmed by
the Chief Executive. No other country is
composed of people trained to habits of
thought which cause them TO acquiesce in
the decisions of the highest court of
the land as quietly and as contentedly as
II those decisions had come from q
tribunal composed of beings superior to
man. No other country can ever rival
ours in respect of this imposing court,
which has become ten times the giant IN
strength that even JOHN MARSHALL ever ex-
pected IL 10 become, and has a fame which
already extends over the civilized world.
What different story we should have to
tell if JOHN MARSHALL had bean a strict
constructionist of the Constitution and
an earnest and sincere believer in
the rights of the States. We some
times think that no other one man
ever lived who had 1t in his power to
change the history of the world as Chief
Justice MARSHALL may be said TO have
changed il. II is an old joke amongst law
students that he rendered the decisions of
the Supreme Court and then told Mr.. JUS
tice STORY to hunt up and quote the au-
thorities needed TO support those deci-
sions- This old story does injustice to the
powerful mind of MARsHALL and the astute
augmentation of SToRY, neither of whom
can be too highly estimated-the one as
the complement of the other.
In the SAYwABD case the Supreme Court
may decide that the Alaska court con-
strued the law Alright, and that the judg-
ment of confscation must stand. What
complications might not such decision
lead to? Would Congress then decide for
itself whether to appropriate the money
needed to enforce the decision of our
highest tribunal2 Would the President
feel free TO veto such an appropriation
billp There is, We repeat, much involved
in the SAYwARD case. tits new departure.