The Monmouth inquirer., 1894-03-29

a manner contrarv to the fundamentnl
laws and the proposition, therefore,
wonld seem self-evideat that as no pow
or is vested by the Constitution IN the
majority of the Senators to conslrue
sncb laws in this respect, the power to
confirm and enforce it is lodged 10 the
ordinary legal tribunal.
Referring to the Judicial prerogo'lve,
Mr.. Cooley, in his work on The rignt
and power of the Court to do this are
SO plain. and the duty is SO generally
universally conceded, that we should
not be justified in wearing out the pa
tience Of the reader in quoting the very
numerous authorities.
sIt will certainly, therefore, be the
unexpected that happens when learned
counsel in reply to the contention that
the Senatorial organization in session
was inconsistent with the constitution
al prescriptions, assumed condltlon
that this court could not entertain lur-
isdiction in the cass. as the constitu-
ton was a matter of pure legislative
character.
s.No decision has been made for
century past that does not antagonize
such proposition. 1t will be under
stood that in this indication OF what
seems TO be the undeniable prerogatlye
of this court there is not the slightest
suggestion of the existence of other lu-
dicial capacity to control the Legislative
authority when exercised within its ap
propriate field.
'.Ifthe question here presented nad
been whether this Senatorial BODY nad
been organized in their accustomed
mode or in open violation OF Its own
practices and rulings totally different
subject of inquiry would have been be-
fore us; and it may well be doubted that
we have discretion of reviewing such
matter.
..This court does not claim the slight
est legal faculty to supervise or inter
fere with such transaction; all that is
asserted is thst when the inquiry IS
whether the Legislature or any body OF
officers has violated the regulations OF
the Constitution it is entirely claimed
that the decision of that subject must
rest exclusively with the judicial depart
ment of the Government; nor can we
for a moment forget that in entering
upon the inquiry that is now imposed
upon us as duty that we have to deal
with subject of great importance ana
delicacy. and that before the restraining
power of this Court can be exercised 10
interfere with the action of co-ordinate
branch of the State Government
"We must be as certain as care and
diligence can make us that the tonnda-
ton on which we place ourselves is sure
and certain. That this court has the
legal right to entertain jurisdiction III
the case displayed by this record, We
have no doubt, and we are OF the opln-
ion that it is scarcely possible to con
ceive of any crisis in public affairs that
is more imperative than the present one
imperatiyely calling for an intervention
OF such judicial authority.
with respect to the further conten-
ton that the President of the Senate
does not belong to that class of officers
whose legality can be put to the test
by proceeding in the nature OF q quo
warranto our conclusion is that such
contention can not prevail, the statute
of this State being broader than It's En-
glish prototypes; the scope OF this RENE
dy for it declares, that it shall be appllc
able to every case in which any person
or persons shall usurp or unlawfully
hold or execute any Office within this
State, consequently it does not seem de-
niable that all officers, those derived
from the Legislative as well as those de-
rived from other sources, are included
in this definition and the consequen ces
must be, therefore that the provision
iustifes the present proceedings unless
it be shown that such action will be IN
consistent with the constitution or PRIV
ileges of the Senate as an independent
part of the Government. And indeed
this was one of the questions OF counsel
in the argument before us. But we
think it is but obvious that whatever
seeming course such an argument as Ii
derived from the petitio princippi he
fore alluded to. for it assumes as it's ba-
sis that the court is taking proceedings
against the officers OF the genuine Sen
ate.
1.-THE assumption is unfounded that
the process that we are now asked to
/, order is to be directed against the Sen
! ate. It seems to be plain that such &C
ton cannot be an infringement of the
prerogatives of the State. and in dispos.
, ing of this part of the case no stress Ii
laid on the fact that each of these re-
spondents was legally entitled to hold e1
: officio certain high offices by virtue ol
l the Constitutional laws of the State.
i s.For it seems to be we'll to trace the
! right of the Court TO authorize the us'
of the present proceeding on the distinc
: ground that it is the appropriate ant
legal remedy, whenever it shall be mad'
to appear that any person is holding
himself as public officer by Senatoria
appointment. when in point of fact suct
J appointing body has no existence, il
: view of the constitutional provisions ant
regulations.
.'As at present advised I do not per
ceive how in any case there can be an.
judicial interference with the action, ap
pointments, or proceedings OF the tw'
: Senates of the States unless the same
: shall be shown out OF harmony with th'
constitutional law. We wish to be un-
} derstood that We do not intend to anC
, do not decide anything further than the