The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1907-11-26

and approval Of the president had no
effect in these United States AMI thus.
contrary 70 law this one lawyer trans
ferred more than 400. o0o.o coo OF an
nuaI taxation from the supcrduous
wealth % the rich and placed II on
the backs Il the poor. where that
burden has remained for fourteen
years No King in Europe could haVo
thus repealed such "a statute enacted
hy his people without an explosion
that would have. brought the very
pillars OF the state about his head
The word corporation is not in the
Constitution Cntll 1914 the court
held corporations were not citizens.
and hence corporations chartered IN
other states could not remove their
cases into the Federal courts. Then
suddenly the court reverted its rulings
and held that corporations we're citi-
gems and could remove their cases
About the same time they held that "A
negro was not a citizen What they
would have held As to a corporation
composed Of negroes Is yet Il riddle
The people OF New York. In pity for
the o~vertaxed lahorers in "A certain
calling. passed an act limiting their
hours or labor. The highest court Of
the state saw no occasion or right TO
intervene. but the Federal supreme
court interfering with purely local
legislation which could affect no one
but the residents of that state, told
liz DtpRGt u NV VI ~ AtiAA AiAt
could not free the bondsmen and
bondswomen who were laboring be-
You'd their strength.
Il might go on and give case after
case OF Interference with legislation by
the non-lCgislative branch OF the gov
But / am preferring no bill
OF Indictment against any judges, past
or present. / am not questioning
their ability or their motives. A judge
myself. ! have no intention of reflect
ing on other judges. But as an Amer
lean citizen. talk ing 70 American citi-
ems. almost within the shadow Of
that tail monument which stands To
tell of meL. who died that we might be
free. / 10 question the assertion by
the judiciary OF the power to set aside
the VIII OF the people SO lightly and
so often ! plainly see the danger OF
thWarting that viii to the extent that
it has been done. and 10 the greater
extent which is threatened.
George the Third thought he could
reign in America. If not In England.
but Lexington and Concord, and Bun
ker Hill and Saratoga and Yorktown
shattered his dream. If we could not
be governed by a hereditary king, can
the viii OF the people be held in
check and nullified by five lawyers?
If "a state enaCtS rate regulation OF
common carriers shall a subordinate
Federal judge throw the statute back
" @NN' @CA'S - ttaA iatL@
regulation Of carriers. or taxation Of
incomes, and the legal tender quality
Of our money, shall the judges say to
the contrary? If our and
our legislatures cannot legislate for
us, where did a few lawyers. wearing
gowns, get the right to say what our
laws shall be? Who gave them the
power? This generation did not, for
the laws express the public Will con-
trary to the viii of the Judges. The
mi " 20 t1t- thnt A,,n 20 -. a., 49,. .Ia
generation of 1887. most Of whom
have beer. dead more than 100 years.
gave these judges the power to deny
to this generation the right to make
their OWL laws. As that generation
spent themselves in q patriotic strug-
gle for the right Of self-governmenti
they could hardly have intended to
deny that right to us. The claim has
never borne examination.
The doctrine OF judicial s~upremacy.i
of the right of the courts to disalloW
laws, did not exist in England. No
judge there has ever asserted il to be q
judicial function. 1t did not exist I'M
der the first Constitution of the United
states. Not a line in ouS second Con-
stitution which was created by the
Federal Convention in PHILADELPHIA in
1897 contains a word or an imatio
comforting such power on the courts.
That convention sat with closed doors.
and under a resolution tina no mem
Der should divulge its proceeding. The
Journal was kept secret and first pub-
lished ~ years later with Madis0n's
notes. From that we see that the prom
oSltlon t. give TO the Judges OF the
supreme Court power to hold an act
or unconstitutional was pro-
posed and that in It's least objection
able form. l. 2. before the ratiffca tion
or an act, (as with the P~recidentfaI
yeto). was supported by Mr.. Mad
Is"h, a~IttrWards President and by
James Wilson, afterwards Judge OF
Y. , supreme Court. and others but
was Votet down on fourth of June.
receiving the vote of only two States
The motion was renewed no less than
three times :. g. on 6 June. 81 July.
ana ilnaIIy on Is August and at no
tlrne received the vote Of more than
three states. though thus earnestly
pressed by influential on
TINS last occasion. Mr.. Mercer thus
voiced the sentiment Of the Conyen-
tion- he disapproved Of the doctrine
that the Judges, az expositore 20 80
Constitution should have authoritv ~
declare a law void He thought laws
ought u be well and cautiously made
and Their TO be uncontrovertible"
After the decisive refusal Of fbe
.~onVention OF 1877 To give this author
~ 70 inc judges, the matter lay auiet
Ior IA years when 1t was announced h..
John Marshall in ayber = Mi
son, N ar Obiter dictum. Bur as The
Court through asserting this ahstrse,
: ls"t ~ atciare an act unconstitutional
concIudeo py dismissing the action be-
cause had not allowed n 70
issue a mandamus no issue was raised
WIN President Jefferson who II uaa
hhp"h, would not permi. execution ~
the order Of the court.
lne power was net conferred. The
Ionsti5utlon shows that. The con-
Nehtoh refused To give IT. The Hour
mas are evidence Of thfs. 1t il a
po"er Without precedent. II is IN
our legal origin. ~
II the Constitution had conferred
tHe power on the judges it would no..
nave made IL absolute. bur uo,I9
surely have made it d..
Jefferson d~isregarded 8,
M court made its Judgment
IN the Georgia case Jackson 10.
lnenIorced, and it was never or any
meet MT Lincoln did the
Meiiyihah case Tie whole
country knows how little the ~
SCOTT decision was OF any erec. ~
II short