Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-09-27
points will be fairly met and conclusIvely

and Federal. cannot be overestimated.
but their dignity and the respect ana
confidence In which they will be held
must depend upon their official action and
personal department. When they fire.
quently override themselves and are
about equally divided in very important
cases. what improperly can there be In
lawyers or other citizens criticising their
decisions and differing with them? Very
recently distinguished member OF the
Virginia Bar. in the Virginia Law Regis
ter. published his strong disapproval OF
late decision OF our own Supreme Court
OF Appeals. And the editor OF that jour
nal objects so much to the decisions or
courts in regard TO the general fellow
servant doctrine" that he invokes the
aid OF the people and the legislatures
which they elect TO put check upon
them. Has he, who has adorned our
highest judicial bench and revised our
laws. no respect for the judiciary, or any
wish TO degrade II because he desires to
check some OF its excuses?
But the most wholesale swipe at APP
pellate courts, including the Federal.
comes from that of Georgia. IL awaited
itself of the services OF ex-Chief-Justice
Bleckley, as a sort of amicus curiae.
and got him to prepare the independent
dered. The case was that of a widow
against railroad company for killing
her husband and son, and the court
stood up boldly for the bereaved widow.
Their opinion says: Every direct
authority known to us Is against us.
Nevertheless we are right, and these au-
thorities are all wrong, as time and FUR
Their judicial study of the subject Will
manifest" Shall not the Chicago plat
form exercise u privilege which courte-
GUS Virginia lawyers and a Georgia
appellate court 80 freely take2 But this
Is not near all.
In the case Of Martin VS.. Martin,
NUM-. l, the Supreme Court Of Virginia,
overruled and disobsyed a mandate sent
to them by the United States Supreme
Court. reversing their decision Ihey
treated that court with due respect, but
held that the statute under which they
acted was constitutional. The case was
argued by William Writ and Watkins
Leigh, ana the unanimous opinion OF the
court delivered by Judge Cabeil. This
was about 1875 but in 1893, when an act
OF Pennsylvania was set aside by the SUI
preme Court. Cranch. 1876, armed COLL
sion was narrowly avoided.
DR.. Alfred Russell. OF Detroit mot the
Russell who late.y tackled Attorney
General Olney). has recently given
very full and abe resume OF the deci-
sions Of the United States Supreme
Court on constitutional questions during
nearly its whole career. lie admits,
as he was bound TO DO, the inevitably
political complexion Of that court; says
that lit is the most distinctive product
OF American political genius; but rs a
political body; appointments 10 its
bench are political, and the court cannot
be other than the sum OF i-s members.
This shows how ridiculous Is the diatribe
of General Buckner in his speech Of
acceptance at Louisville. DR. Russell
rejoices in the long service of Cbef-Jus-
tice-Marshall, because OF the tone and
continuity which he. with his master
mind and political tendencies, gave 10
the decisions OF the court But when
General Jackson filed five lIces on its
bench, with five judges OF lbs own poll
teal status, the judicial penddlum be-
gan to swing the other way. it was
inevitable that anti-federal views should
stamp themselves upon coming con-
stitutional decisions"
When c. j. Tany, in the Charles
river bridge case In 1897, notified the
decision in the Dartmouth College case,
in 1919 the judges and jurists Of the
Marshall school stared and gasped, and
were afraid the country was lost IL
has since been generally admitted that
g. j. Tany was wise and judicious But
I'm 1865, under federal IDEAS, strength
ened by the civil war, and inter-
preted by appointees of Lincoln, the
doctrine OF the College case was en-
forced in the strictest manner" though
with some dissent For thirty years
the College case has been followed or
distinguished, according to the political
composition Of the court. 1t is a pivotal
case between Federal and State rights
doctrine"
Dr. Russell, further says: VERY early
the relations Of the court to the State
Legislature excited public interest. Ine
Georgia case, 2 Oali. 4l9 Q79O, aroused
State Jealousy by the declarations of Jay
as to the national character of the
Union and the mastery dissent OF Iredell
furnished thenceforward the armory
from which State-rights' parties drew
their weapons until that doctrine received
It's death blow in the civil war. That
war put the country back upon the plat
form Of Hamilton and the Federalists Of
l1S2. and to stay"
What have the goldite Democracy. who
swear by Jefferson, Jackson. and Cleye-
land, TO say to such stay" as that'
IL does not follow from its inevitable
political complexion. that the court Will
always decide in favor of an existing
administration, nor that every Judge Will
concur with the President who appointed
him. BY sound theory, a judge, after
he is appointed, ought to be non-partisan
and Independent. But before he Is APP
pointed his opinions on leading principles
OF constitutional construction. which have
In fact fixed his political and party
status, have been known; he VIII not
abandon them when he Is elevated to
the bench and they will sway MIN, and
ought to do so, in tho decision OF many
important cases. Owing TO the life-
tenure OF the judges and the possible
changes OF parties In the administration,
the court may be altogether OF different
party from the administration, but II any
OF them were II die, the President would
be sure TO fill the vacancy with one OF his
own adherents Mr.. Cleveland has du-
ring his two terms appointed several
Judges who were men OF his own head.
but President Harrison appointed, In be-
tween those terms, some OF his own men.
Mr.. Cleveland nominated two Peckhams,
hut had to withdraw one OF them. me
other IS now on the bench. lie
appointed Chief-Justice Fuller. who, at
both hearings held that the income-tax
law was unconstitutional Yet Mr. Ciese-
land approved that law, and he 10 law
yer and noted for the carefulness with
which he examines the bills which await
his signature.
Moreover, c. ]. Chase held that making
greenbacks legal tender was unconsIitu-
tional. although he had, as Secretary OK
the Treasury. recommended 1t. But he
was outnanked by President Grant, whose
oartisans increased the number OF the
Judges to nine, and thus there were TWO
seats on the bench which he hlled with
men whose decision he foreknew: Thus
the President substantially decided the
greenback legal tender case. ANA YET
-. .r,a Danutlican marty. and those