The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1901-07-17
ESTABLISHED 1914

awful nature the Court will never resort to that authority
but in clear and urgent case The case OF Marbury vs.
Madison is by reason of its wealth of learning universally
regarded the leading this question, although its
Language merely o6iter: ~
The next great forward step of the Constitution, was
mccullough VS.. Maryland famous in our judicial annals
because it involved question absolutely vital to- the
lStates In that case the Supreme Court decided that
had the declare the statute of State unconsitu
tiona when was repugnant to the Federal Constitution
This decision practically eed the doctrine of States
Rights and made our government National IN character
This case was decided in 1919
The case of Gibbons VS. Ogden was decided In 1924,
and upheld the exclusive power of Congress- to regulate
commerce among the States The argument in the case
ldeat largely with the question whether navigation IS
commerce, '..~ ...@.. ..',
In answering the question in the affirmative Chief
Justice Marshall used the oft quoted words: Commerce
undoubtedly traffic, but it is something more 1T IS
liuteycourse These words to have been prophetic
as foeteing the railroad the telegraph, the telephone
and all the wonderful appliances by which science compes
nature to be the servant of man.
Senator Hoar in instructive analyst of the decls-
iens in which the Sepreme Court of the United States
has declared Acts of Congress unconstitutional null and
void says Snce the war; there have been fifteen cases
lin which Acts of Congress- have been held repugnant to
the constitution. ..''
Collector u.s. Day. decided at the December term,
$780, holds that it is not competent tor Congress- to I'M
pose tax upon the salary of judicial officer OF State
This decision only limits, by construction, the general
phraseoogy of Act of Congress- holding that it cannot
lapply to the salary of State officer, and should there
ore hardly be included among those decisions which hold
Acts of Congress unconstitutional .a
United States DeVitt holds that Act OF Con-
eress declaring it misdemeanor to mix for sale, any
naphtha and Illuminating oil, unconstitutional as being
police regulation relating exclusively to internal trade OF
the State.
Gordon u.s. United States which holds unconstution-
al the statute of March 3rd 1863 far authorizes an
appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Claims
lin where that Court acts only as an auditor or
or, reporting its decision to Congress. /- Y. -
Calaa u.s. Wilson which limits the general language
d the statute defining the jurisdiction of the Police Court
| Athe District of Columbia. ...: III
- United States For, which holds provision uncon-
stutiona which declares that every person respecting
whom proceedings in bankruptcy instituted who within
three months before their commencement obtains goods
upon false pretenses shall be punished by Imprisonment
lon the ground that Act, not oense when commit
ted can not become such by subsequent independent
act with which it had no connection. - J..
United States rs. Sefens which holds the statute OF
187o concerning trade marks, unconstitutional as not
Limited to trade marks used in international interstate
commerce ...... .-g... .. -@.5...
Boyd u.s. United States, which holds the Statute of
June 22nd 1874 unconstitutional so far as authorizes
Court of the United States to require the defendant IN
revenue cases, to produce his private books.
! United States u.s. r.. r.. holding Statute taxing
bonds of municipal corporations unconstitutional,
None of them deals with questions, about which dit
erent political parties or different sections of the country
questions great general interest andn all Of them the de-
cision of the Court suppose, has met with universal
acquescence. These cases are eight in number
There remain six dealing with legislation OF the
disturbed PERIOD which followed the to wit:
United States Harris, where section $50 OF the
Rev. Statutes declared unconstitutional the ground
that Congress has no power, to pass law Punsning
citizens of the States for consprng to deprive other
citizens, of the equal protection OF the laws OF such
|States
limited States u.s. Reese which holds sections and d,
of the Act of May 81, $780, beyond the limit OF the
Fifteenth Amendment the Constitution and unauthorized
as not confined in their operation to unlawful dscrlmna
servitude.
The CiviI Rights cases which hold the Ist and end
sectons of the Civil Rights Act, unconstitutional
En- 6ayte Garland which holds law unconstitutional,
which provided that person should be admitted to the
bar of the Supreme Court without first taking an oath,
that he had never borne arms, against the United States
as being exbos ac and parakng of the nature OF bill
! of attainder. IF : 49,. e.. .. .,,~ : ~, =
ard 1861 providing for retral in the Federal Court OF
facts tried by iuryn the State Court unconstitutional
United States Us. Kleiu which holds the statute OF
Iuy H. $780, null and void providing that the acceptance
of pardon shall be exclusive evidence of the acts purpor
inc to be pardoned invading the powers, both OF the
judicial and executive departments of the government
| These decisions six in number are all IN which the
Court has held unconstitutional Acts of Congress- IN Pur-
suance of the policy of the dominant party IN regard
70 what is called reconstruction This summary compre
hends every case from the foundation of the government
in which the national legislative power has been held in
cbeck hv the Supreme Court with single exception