The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-03-15

SO4t3titotsSkAoi. ii iS<St ~
this decision had been reafiirmed by the
same court. The bill for a new charter
| did not alter the constitution OF the oank
in any material respect. Nevertheless,
President Jackson did not feel bound oy
these decisions, but insisted that the
Executive, like each OF the other Depart
ments. was TO be It's own Judge on Con
stitutional questions that came within Ns
particular sphere Of action. In MS pahk
veto meesage he said: 1t Is maintained
by the advocatesof the bank that its con-
stitutionality In al its features ought 70
be considered as settled by precedent ana
by the decision Of the Supreme Court
To this conclusion cannot assent Mere
precedent Ia dangerous source OF au-
thority. and should not be regarded az
deciding questions Of Constitutional power
ercspt rhere TIE acquiescence OF me people
and tAs Stotss con b considered a. vea
settisd,' Again: Even the opinion OF
the Supreme Court covered the whole
ground Of this act. II ought not to control
the coordinate authorities OF this Govern.
ment. The Congress, the Executive and
the Court must each for itself be guided
by it, own opinion OF the Constitution
EocA public officer vho tokss an oath TO ssp.
port tAs Constitution svsays hdt ne r'm
sxppcr u a. he snderstdnds u, and not a.
10 s~dsrsGood BY otAers.'
In is4i President Tyler's veto OF new
Bank bill again brought up the question
Of the binding nature Of q United States
Supreme Court decision. Mr.. buchanan.
afterward President. but then q member OF
the House, In defending bis own vote against
the bill. and In support Of Tyier's veto
Endorsed Jsckson's position. He held the
legislator 10 be a. independent Of the court
a. the President. Though Ill tho Judges
In the country had decided In favor OF the
bank. yet, when the question was brought
home to him a. Q legislator bound TO vote
for or against a new charter, on his oath
to support the Constitution. Buchanan
held that he would have TO exercise his own
Judgment; II the arguments and opinions
OF the Judges failed TO convincs him that the
law was Constitutional. he held that he
would be guilty Of perjury II he voted in
It's favor.
In June. 1854, Charles Summer was hit
tsrly asssiled In the United Su tes Senate
by pro-slavery Senators for having indi-
Gated thst no would not help to enforce
| the Fugitive Slave law Of 1880. for the reason
that he deemed it unconstitutional. A
the constitutionality Of the law. or Of .
similar one, had been upheld by the United
States Supreme Court, Sumner was charged
with violating his oath 10 support the Con-
stitution OF the United States, In his
| speech In reply TO his assailants. after
quoting Jackson and Buchanan as good
| Democratic authority. Summer said: 4
have sworn to support the Constitution a.
I understand II, and not ~ II Ia understood
| by others, Does any Senator here dissent
| from This rllei At all events. I accept the
| rule a. just and reasonable, In harmony.
too, with that liberty which scorns pdssipe
, obedience. and asserts the inestimable
right OF private judgment, whether In re-
ligton OF politics. In swearing to support
the Constitution at your desk. Mr.. Presi-
dent, l did not swear TO support II as you
understand II. ! swore 70 support the
Constitution a. understand II. not more.
not less Substantially the same ground
was taken By Abraham Lincoln. In his
debate with Douglass In 1858, he quoted
! Jackson with approval. and gave notice
that he regarded the Dred Scott decision
a. erroneous. He added that while no
resistance should be offered 70 II, a. the law
the particular case might decide, yet the
country should not feel bound by 1t as a
precedent. Both lincoln and Seward &C.
cussd the President and Chief Justice fancy
Of collision In the matter Of that decision.
Prof woodburn. for his part, has no doubt
that, as President, Lincoln would have re-
fused to be bound by the Supreme Courts
decision; that he would have continued to
assert the power Of Congress, and would
have ussd al the powers Of the Presidency
! TO prohibit slavery In the Territories, not
| withstand!ng the position taken by the
| court.
Judge Cooley. than whom we could
| hardly name a higher authority. declares
In his Constitutional law that Jefferson
and jackson. Sumner and Lincoln. were
justified in holding that a President must
Judge for himself a. TO his Constitutional
duty, and that he has q perfect right TO
refuse his sanction TO a bill ON Constitu-
tionai grounds. even though such . bin
has previously been held Constitutional
by ths Supreme Court
A distinction 10 drawn in the book before
us, however, between the Presidents right
, 20 veto bill and his right 10 refuse to ex-
ecute q bill that has been passsd over his
veto. OF Law that he hnds upon the statute
| book. Andrew jackson carried his con-
tefnpf Yof the Nn1t~u bte,es SuPvfh~ touft
10 far that be refused 20 execute the Lac.
o. ., vas declared by that tribunal, for the
profession Of the Chsrokss Indians against
tho state Of Georgia. II vas In the oass of
Worcester W. Georgia dss1, In which the
court declared u 90 In the Presidsn''s
duty 70 protest the Cberoksss, that Jack
soa 10 sAid 20 have made us~ ~ the notable
sspr~selon. John Marshall has made lie
dsalslon. moo lot him snforcs IT. ~
oourse. Marshall could pot enforcs !,
Thew xu no remsdy in the Judiciary. II
tbs President ,iols,ss bis oath Ia sssos,s
the lss on ,is, asn 10 doas 10 foe ,hs hou.s
~ Representatives 10 inyasrh him, and
fa tbs asasls 10 eoas.sa aud remove Llm
% tbs hoasss fail 10 imI>seh snd oaavlst.
tbs saiy rsssdr h.s IN the psssf ~ tho
,sspls 60 ssilsss sush . pH.siasni from
| sflas % ths heal siassloa
Ahl,sash ,is lAalf.s ms,hed " slsstlaS
psss.assi ss ssssiasa shl psssllsi
s-il-i.sa lss b, ilss iss@s. asa sss slAas,
az. ....ls $40 A tls tsasfsl SBsiSni dsslss,a