The Robesonian. [volume] (Lumberton, N.C.) 1870-current, 1908-04-02

be Law Years AgO-Attacks Up
on Courts that are UncalIed for
and UnVVarranIed.
From The Charlotte Observer.
To the Editor of The Observer:
Uncalled for, wanton attacks
upon the courts, the attempt to
destroy confidence in them,
prime requisite in the business
of government, as in other busi-
ness relations, impugning and
impeaching the motives of judges
upon slight evidence or none, all
these things are of the spirit of
anarchy, and should be condemn
ed by every good citizen who has
at heart the stability of our in
stitutions; for legislative bodies
to enact and executives toenforce
laws would be but the instru-
ments of most calling tyranny,
we're it not for the judicial
branch of the government to de-
clare what those laws are and
how they shall he enforced.
These observations would seem
commonplace and wholly unnec-
essary but for an apparent
effort, noticed now and then, to
bring the courts into disre-
pute.
We are told now that the
courts are rushing into centrali-
zation; that the Supreme Court
of the United States. sustaining
Judge Pritchard in the Wood
case, has repealed the eleventh
amendment to the constitution,
and has gone further in one day
towards centraiization than in a
hundred years before.
Is this correct? If so, it is
startling, the more so when We
remem Der that a Democrat, Mr.
Justice Peckham, delivered the
opinion of the court, and the only
other Democratic judges, Chic.
Justice Fuller and Mr.. Justice
White, the latter a Southern
Democrat, concurred in the opin
ion.
But this statement is not cor
rect, for we think it will be ad
nitted by every careful student
of the history of that great court
in this latest Ndeliverance, they
have only reafirmed what tEey
declared to be the law years
ago.
It is no new thing for the Fed
eral courts to declare unconsti
tutional Legislative acts of a SOW
e1eign State. This right was
first claimed and exercised near
ly one hundred years ago, ir
Fletcher VS.. Peck, decided ir
1910, John Marshall, a Southern
man, being then Chief Justice
and delivering the opinion of the
court. Down to 1888 it had beer
exercised in more than two hun
| dred cases, in twenty of whicf
acts of Congress, and in the re
mainder many Legislative ant
municipal enactronts of thirty
four States were held void, as re
fpugnant to the constitution o
laws of the United States. Han
mis- Taylor, Jurisdiction an
procedure of the United State
ESupreme COurt).'
Having been begun ninety
Height years ago, and having bee
continuously exercised from the
time till now. it has been author
J. itativeIy settled:
1st. That the Federal court
: have Jurisdiction to inquire I'M
. and determine the validity
Legislation by a State where col
stitutionalquestions are involvet
I and, I'd, it is their duty to do S
when their aid is invoked in
proper case. AS to when the j
risdiction attaches, must, fro
the very nature of the case,
left to the courts themselves, ,su
ject to review by the appella
courts. A necessary corolla
of this proposition, clearly set 0
by Justice Harlan in Yarbt
ough's case, hereinafter referr
to, is that the court first assur
l' ing Jurisdiction OF the gene
subject matter should be allow
to go forward in orderly proc'
D ure, without harassing interf
y euce from courts of a co-ordini
Jurisdiction.
That Judge Pritchard had
risdictiontoinq uire and determ
the reasonableness of our Fl
! regulations, no one can de-
that it was his duty to do so, III
proper bill filed before him,
lonuor will dopu n flor ron n