The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-05

decision OF the question thus distinctly
put in issue was one of the most impor-
tant ever submitted to human judgment;
and if it is regarded as an accident that
at such "a crisis in the history of free in
situations John Marshall was chosen to be
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States, then chance was as wise
and far-seeing as any divine guidance OF
the nation could have been
MIR. Webster wrote of him years after
ward, Il have never seen man of whose
intellect l have a higher opinion and
his intellect never served him to better
purpose than when he declared the wise
and moderate doctrine that the Constitu-
ton should not have either a strict or a
liberal construction, but one giving the
natural and ordinary effect to its words.
He said: The intention of the instrument
must prevail This intention must be
gathered from its words. Its words are to
be understood in that sense in which they
are generally used by those for whom the
instrument was intended, and those pro-
visions are neither to be restricted into
lnsignifcanee nor extended to objects not
comprehended in them, nor contemplated
by its framers''
To these memorable words are tc be
added these others equally memora BILE:
That this court dares not usurp power
is most true That this court dares not
shrink from its duty is not less true"
and these declarations guided him, Jas
with beacon lights. through his entire
judicial career. OF these propositions no
criticism could really be offered, nor from
them was any appeal to either passion
or prejudice possible. They enabled the
Chief Justice to rear upon them that en-
during structure of the true meaning of
the Constitution which is among The most
priceless possessions of our inheritance,
and which will enable coming genera
tons to enjoy our privilege of living
under a government of liberty regulated
by law
Soon after Mr.. Marshall's entrance
upon the duties of Chief Justice the Su-
preme Court was confronted with one of
the most important questions ever sub
United to any tribunal for decision: Was
the extent and scope of the limitations
the Constitution imposed upon the au-
tnority of the legislative department of
the Government of the United States to
be determined by its judicial department?
Might the latter declare null and void as
in conflict with such limitations, a law
deliberately enacted by the former? Many
strong reasons existed for supposing this
could not have been intended One was
because all legislative authority was ex-
pressly vested N Congress. Another was
because the members of Congress repre-
scented the people and held direct and
explicit mandates from them, renewed at
briefly recurring intervals. to enact such
laws as they judged to be wise and nee
essary. On the contrary, the Justices OF
the Supreme Court were the nominees of
the President. and enjoyed tenure of Office
during their lives
The assertion that the latter were at
liberty to lnnul and set aside the leglsla-
ton enacted by the former seemed to
many ardent and sincere patriots a prop
osition destructive of the division OF the
powers of the Government into three de-
partments Of coordinate dignity and au-
thority. But listen TO the calm and re-
sistiess strength with which the Chief
Justice establfShed on impregnable found
atoms the true doctrine: The question
whether an act repugnant to the Consti-
tuition can become law of the land is a
question deeply interesting TO the United
states but happily not of an intricacy pro-
portioned to its interest. II an act OF the
Legislature repugnant 10 the Constitution
is void. does 1t notwithstanding its inva-
lldlty bind the courts and oblige them to
give it effect? Or in other words. though
1t be not law. does ii constitute a rule
as operative as il il was a iay2 This
would be to overthrow in fact what was
established in theory and would seem al
first an ahsIIrdlty too gross to be insisted
on 1t shall. however, receive q more at
teAtive consideration. 1t Is emphaticalIy
the province and duty OF the judicial de-
partment to say what the law is. If two
laws conflict with each other the courts
must decide on the operation OF each So
II law be in opposition to the Constitu-
ton, II both the law and Constitution ap-
ply TO particular case, so that the court
must either decide that case conformably
TO the law disregarding the Constitution. |
or conformably to the Constitution disre- !
sarding the law, the court must determine |
which of these conflicting rules governs |
me case That is of the very essence of /
judicial duty. II thea the courts are 10 |
regard the Constitution, and the Consti- |
tuition is superior TO any ordinary act of !
the Legislature. the Constitution. and not |
such ordinary act. must govern the case |
TO which they both apply"
TIE PRESIDENT AND THE LAW.
In deciding that the judicial authority
Of the court extended to the issuing of
process to the President. ne settled for all |
time the subsection of the head of the |
Executive Department to the law: and he |
effectually disposed of the argument that |
IS the King Of Great Britain was not sub |
ect to such process the President of the |
United States ought not to be. by saving. !
of the many points of difference which |
sXist between the first magistrate of Eng |
and and the First Magistrate of the Uni |
ed States. IN respect to the personal dig |
lity conferred on them by the constitu
ions OF their respective nations. the court
VIII only select two 1t is a principle of |
he English Constitution that the King
an do no wrong; that no blame can be |
imputed to him; that he cannot be named [
n debate. BY the Constitution of the Uni 1
ed States the President as well as every
'ther officer of the Government may be
mpeached and may be removed from Of
ice for high crimes and misdemeanors
BY the constitution OF Great Britain the
;rown is hereditary and the monarch can
lever be subject. BY the Constitution of
he United states the President is elected
rom the mass Of the people. and on the
expiration of the time for which he is
elected he returns to the mass OF the
people again"
BY course Of reasoning equally ire
;istible he subjected the lawfuness of the
ministerial acts OF members of the Cabi-
let TO the decision of the courts: The
Government of the United States has been
smphaticalIy termed a government of
laws and not of men. It will certainly
cease TO secure this high appellation if
he laws furnish no remedy for the viola
ion of a vested legal right. The very es-
sence of civil liberty consists in the right
IF every individual to claim the protec-
ion OF the laws whenever he receives an
injury. One of the first duties of govern
nent is TO afford that protection. By the
of the United States the
President is invested with certain i'm
,ortant political powers. in the exercise
4 which he is accountable 10 his country
n his political character and to his own
conscience. To aid him in the perform