Denver labor bulletin. [volume] (Denver, Colo.) 1915-19??, 1918-07-06

all the other cases before mentioned,
the supreme court shall have appel
late jurisdiction, both as to law and
fact, with such exceptions and under
such regulations as Congress shall
make"
The inferior courts are Ordained
and established" by Congress, which
must prescribe the limits of their jur-
isdiction. The claim of supremacy
by the judiciary over its creator is
therefore not authorized. 1t is as
serted that it is necessary to the in
dependence" of the judiciary. In fact,
it is the assumption by it of supreme,
irresponsible and autocratic power.
OF course every department of the
government takes an oath to support
the constitution. But the supreme
power to review whether they do or
not is reserved to the people, and is
nowhere given to the judiciary.
If Congress disobeys the constitu-
ton the members of both the House
and Senate are chosen by the people
and can be reviewed at the next cleo
ton.
If the President disobeys the con-
stitution, he is chosen by the people,
and his acts can be reviewed at the
next election.
If the judiciary do an unconstitu-
tional act they are not chosen by the
people, and cannot be reviewed at the
next election. That they have acted
unconstitutionally has been held by
themselves in reversing the legal ten
der decision; in the income tax decis-
ion; in the ten-hour case (Lochner
easel, virtually reversed the Adam
son law case, and in other cases.
In the income tax case the last de-
cision was wrong, and it required
eighteen years to get the evil cor
rected by constitutional amendment,
and in the meantime that one vote of
one Judge transferred 5000 millions
of dollars taxation from the predatory
rich. and placed it upon the produc-
ing classes of the country.
Is it not worth while to prevent
other abuses by an irresponsible court,
a bare majority of whom may again,
as so often in the past, mistake their
own economic views for the constitu-
ton?
An act similar to that now proposed
by Senator Owen, depriving the court
of jurisdiction over the reconstruction
acts, was admitted by the court itself
as depriying them of power in Nc
Cardle ex parte Wallace 1924.
The first usurpation. in "Marbury
VS.. Madison" during the incumbency
of Chief Justice Marshall. was made
by an obiter dictum and was not re-
peated as to an act of Congress for
/ fifty-four years, in the bred Scott
case, and this brings me to the pur,
port of this article, which is to call
attention to the motive for the obiter
dictum in the Marbury case, as fol-
lows:
In laying the foundation of the
constitution there began the trouble
between the free and slavery system
| of labor, which was a continuous
struggle down TO 1861. II was COM
promised by the constitution giving
| three fifths of vote to slave owners
as representatives of their slaves. 1t
was recognized that by the increase
of the white vote at the North. as
well as by immigration, the South
would soon lose control of the House
and that it would ultimately lose the
control of the Senate, tho for long
time the parity was kept up by al
why's admitting a slave state and
free state at the same time. On the
admission of Missouri in 1920 We
came near a dissolution of the union.
The Mexican war was largely caused
by an effort to maintain the political
equality of the slave states in the
Senate.
For long time the South held the
presidency by nominating North
ern man with Southern principles,
but when Lincoln was elected it was
seen that that could not be relied on.
The Marbury vs.. Madison decision
was simply throwing an anchor to
windward" by giving to the supreme
court power to invalidate any action
of Congress, tho approved by the
president. which should jeopardize
slavery. and which would thus make
the court n third line of defense that
would last the lifetime of the judges.
This was shattered by the hostile re-
ception given the bred Scott case,
and the results of the civil war. The
contest for slavery made the South
"a section apart" and the waves
have not yet entirely subsidized. They
have n proverb in wind-swept Spain,
land of wind mills, Tho the mills
are down, the winds are blowing there
still"
Marbury VS.. Madison having been
thrown up as a bulwark for the slav-
cry trust, when the fourteenth amend
ment was passed with n provision in
tended for the protection of the eman-
cipated negro (Which it did not affect),
the interests created by the war thru
the new appointees from time to time
on the supreme bench secured for
themselves the construction by the
court of newer and deadlier theory
than Marbury VS.. Madison, which was
outworn. AS to the reconstruction
acts, Congress made the court stand
off But rs the court is appointive,
and for life. the people have no hand
in choosing them. and no power to
review them. and if their assumption
of the supreme and ultimate power of
review of the action of Congress shall