The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-07-17
SUPREME COURT ERROR
THE HIGH JUDICIAL BODY NOT xrc
EssARILY INFALLIBLE.
Andrew jackson Set the Democr,,.
an Example for Attacking the
United States Justices.


sober-minded citizen Is tempted 70 en-.
dulge In a smile at the expense OF thu
clause in the. Democratic platform de-
nouncing government by injunction" and
by implication. making the charge OF
tyranny against the Supreme Court ana
the district courts Of the federal system
Not that there Is no question about the
justice and wisdom OF the Debs decision.
That may have been right. but there !.
ground for doubt. and the subject is a Der.
fectly proper one for discussion in conver-
ton or elsewhere. Nevertheless. the Con-
gress of the United States has a remedy
in its hands for any wrong that was done.
and the excitement OF the Populist-Demo-
Gratis is utterly needless
1t seems TO me that there is n misconcen-
ton in the public mind on this matter that
should be rectfied. The Constitution 81
the United States provides for a Supreme
Court. but does not provide for a specific
number of justices. That matter is left TO
Congress along with full power as TO the
organization of inferior courts OF the fed-
eral system. The first law creating a iu-
dietary plan for the new government was
enacted Sept. "a. 1889. 1t fixed the number
of Supreme Court justices at six. including
the Chief Justice. That number has been
successfully raised-never for political pur-
poses-until il is now nine. The law pro-
vided for circuit courts and district courts.
The latter were TO comprise within their
Jurisdiction, each, a district including A
whole State part of state. A United
States marshall and United States dis
trict attorney were TO be named for each
of these districts. The circuit courts were
to be presided over jointly by a district
judge and one OF the Supreme Court JUS
tees.
When the Federal party had been beaten
at the polls and was on the point OF Civ
ing up the presidency IL enacted tfeb. L.
1S0D another law creating distinct circuit
court judges. with separate sets OF mar
shals and attorneys. President Adams was
accused of completing the appointment OF
some OF his men near midnight on the eve
of his retirement. This excited so much
bbitterpess amor the JenerSonians that on
The new judges were unceremoniouSlv
bounced" and found their plea that all
federal magistrates must hold their places
during good behavior. under the Constltl-
ton. laughed at. They never secured any
redress. Congress could abolish their
Offices at its discretion.
JACKSON AS AN ANARCHIST"
The work of the Supreme Court, UP to
the change in the organization of that
court that was effected by Jackson during
his last term. was distinctly in favor of the
theory of loose construction of the Consti-
tuition, and OF consequent extension Of gov
eminent powers. But it cannot be said tina,
personal liberty was assailed. as is charged
On the Debs case. To those who absurdly
hold that the late Democratic convention
did not represent historic Democracy the
Democracy OF Jackson, in it's attack on this
court, il may be well TO recall Old Hick-
ory'.s famous remark about the Cherokee
land case against Georgia in 1882. The State
was engaged in removing these Indians
from land which. they held. had been
transferred 20 them by the Nation The
Supreme Court decided i'm favor of the In
dams. President Jackson. being told of the
finding, said in his excitable way: Tom
Marshall has made his decision; now let
him enforce il if he can" The decision
was never enforced. Georgia was permitted
10 work her own sweet VII on the Chero-
Democratic convention bestowed on the
supreme Court is To be branded as AN
t1e patron saint OF Democracy in defytns
the edicts OF the same court. and annuling
its flats even at the expense of violating his
'rhe wave of popular disapproval CT the
Dred Scott decision and the prostitution OF
tie highest court in lhe land TO the pur-
poses OF the advocates OF human slavery
was called anarchy at the time. As A
matter OF fact. IL was a perfectly proper
expression OF pubic sentiment No agency
the power from which IL springs The
Dred Scott decision was never revoked by
the court. Ii was revoked without the
courts assistance by the emancipation OF
the slaves. But students of our history do
not need TO be told that this Supreme Court
most notorious case was that of the legal
tenders. In 1859 the court held that the
law making greenbacks legal tender was
unconstitutional. In 1870. Two new Justices
having been appointed. il decided that the
same law was constitutional. Infallibllity
does not attach to the holdings of any
Juoiciai pody on the face of the earth
ON RECONSTRUCTION
After suspension of its powers for four
years during the civil war, IN a large part
of the Union, the cupreme Court created
much anxiety among congressman with
reference 10 its possible attitude on recon-
struction legislation. Congress had made
the granting of habeas corpus by fed
eral court. i'm the section lately I'm arms
against the government. dependent on milf
tary consent. II was feared that the work
of reconstruction might be hampered by a
decision that this was unconstitutional. and
a bill actually passed the lower house i'm
nounce any law unconstitutional except by
a two-thirds vote Of all the Justices. This
failed in The Senate. but the reconstruction
avs were sustained.
From his brief resume of tho history OF
the federal judiciary system / think IL IS
reasonably clear that majority Of both
branches OF Congress. backed by friendly
President, need never fear that il will b.
unable to check judicial. usurpation- so
Lar as government by lnluctlOn goes,
only law regulating the issuance of in
functions and limiting power 10 punish for
contempt to contempts Interfering. in
courtroom, with the course OF justice.
granting a jury trial i'm all other cases.
would meet the whole difficulty III punish
nent were desired. district judges could be
leg.slated out of Office easily In 1897 IS
In 1904 1T IL probable that Congress could
put through and enforce such a Law as
was proposed in 1858. as above stated.
limiting the authority OF the Supreme court
to pronounce bills unconstitutional. II IS
certain that. If worse came TO worst. the
lawmaking power could raise the number
of justices on the court OF last resort tal-
ready .ncrea sed in the same way from six
10 ninc) to nineteen. on the same principle
that affects the British House OF Lords.
and thereby get such II decision on any
point as the political branches OF the gov
eminent might desire.
The trouble with the Populist-Democrats
is that they are a minority among the peo-
pie. and will be a minority in the next Con-
gress. as in the last While this Is the
case. they have a right TO agitate. but no
right TO complain. because the majority
rules. as 1t always ought TO rule. in a re-
public