The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1896-11-01
THE CE7I:'AGO PLATFORM ASu.rIIE
SUPREMECt.i re- 0:'TInE UNIFIED
STATES.

| STATES.
| Much has been said abOu, the Cnica
| go platform because ii expre.ses dis
sent fscm the decision of the Supreme
Court Of thu United States on the income
tax, in hat it has laid down a pr.nci-
| pie winch not only Sc. aside the act OF
congress which was questioned III that
case. but viii prevent all future legisla-
| ton on the same subject, and for the
| same purpose. until that decision is re-
Ver'ed. one has only 20 read the dis
sentin& opinions in that cas-. to find a
| criticism upon the ac:oa Of bare ma
| jority of the court which decided it, and
still those who dare in thi; day to
| join In this criticism are termed Anar-
ch!sts ana revolu;ionii.e. if no; traitors.
ana the lIwyc;s Who join thi.i class OF
| critics are termed "jack-l g lawyers, -
the epithet applied TO them few day.,
ago by Bourke Cochran. who spoke in
| this city.
The people who advocate that the Su-
preme Court of the United Staes is above
criticism forget. If they ever knew. of
n,
| reported In Alunfo d. PIP. 1-59, in which
| the Supreme Cour; OF Appeals of Nir-
giD!a. unanimou y REUSED 70 obey a
| mandate from the Supreme Court of the
United States. TIE ylabus OF this ce.-
ebrated case is rs follows:
THE Court of Appeals OF Virginia
| will consider whe. her IA mandate !s-
| sued by the Supreme Court Of the
United States. directing this court 10
enter "A judgmen; reversing one
which ii heretofore pronounced, he
authorized by the Constitution or
not: and being of opinion that such
mandate Is no; so authorized, viii
d!sobey it,"
Judges Cabell, Brooke, Roane and
Fleming who sat in the case. each
delivered an opinion In 1t, and they
were unanimous in ,efusing to obey the
| manufactures high judges of on"
State-becaUse they believed the action
OF the Supreme Court of the United
States was unconstitutional.
After this action of the court q new
writ of error was obtained, and upon
that writ the Supreme Court of the
United States, vindicated its action and
rcliiiTmed its former Judgment in the
case. Mr.. Justice Story delivering the
opinion of the Court, and thus the con-
sti:u;ionality OF the twen:y-fifth section
of the judiciary act was affirmed and
supposed To be settled.
But Mr.. Minor. 4 Inst. pit. /, p. 355.
informs us that the constitutionality of
this section was again called into ques-
tion by VIRGINIA, in the case of Co
hens VS.. Virginia, Wheat, 264, which
was n case that went up from the Dor
ough of Norfolk, and that the STATE
OF VIRGINIA appeared by one of her
distinguished lawyers, p. p. Barbour,
afterwards an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States, to
RESIST THE JURISDICTION. and
again the Supreme Court patiently and
deliberately reviewed the question. and
by the mouth of Chief Justice Marshall
delivered another argument sustaining
with force of reasoning that has ever
since well nigh silenced dissent And
Mr.. Minor adds, p. 35G: "The constitu-
tionality of this ection has been denied
by other States besides Virginia, as by
Georgia. Pennsylvania. Ohio and Cali
fornia." Here, then, is a catalogue of
States, including Virginia, who have
dared to question the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States up
on n question of jurisdiction, which one
would have supposed to have been set
tied by the opinion of that court first
delivered by Mr.. Justice Storey in what
Mr.. Minor says was mastery opin-
ion."
In this connection we publish a letter
from Hon. f. C. Burks, former Judge
of our Supreme Court OF Appeals. which
appeared in the Richmond Dispatch of
the 18th inst, and the comment of the