Year: 1868

IMPE1CHMENT IND The SUfhEME COOAi
Nothing more strongly marks the divergence
Of the Democratic party from its original doc
trines, than its present enthusiastic adherence
to the old Federalist theory in respect to the
province and power of the Supreme Court.


1t is assumed as matter of course, by Mr..
Johnson himself, his Cabinet, and all the
organs of the Democratic party that de-
cisiOn by the Supreme Court against the con-
stitutionality of the Ofice-Tenure act would
necessarily control the decision of the Court of
Impeachments upon his case. So entirely con-
fdent do they seem to be upon this point, that
they speak of his acQuittal as a matter Of
course, in case the Supreme Court should pro-
nounce the law unconstitutional before the trial
OF Mr. Johnson is completed; and the more
respectable journals seriously urge the Senate
to wait until the Supreme Court has had an
opportunity to decide the question for them.
We feel entirely certain that the Supreme
Court will sustain the law, whenever the ques-
ton is brought before it; and, therefore, we
are not influenced by any desire to evade the
proper jurisdiction of that Court, when we deny
the validity of the assumptions thus conf
/ IDENTIFY made. Before arguing the question OF
| jurisdiction ourselves, we wish to call attention
to the fact that this modern Democratic doc
trine is Numerically opposed to that which was
held by Jefferson, Jackson, and Van Buren,
and the whole party of which they were the
leaders. 1t was one of the cardinal
axoms of the old Democracy that the
Supreme Court could not impose its construction
Of the Constitution upon the other departments
of the Federal Government. Jefferson fatty
refused to obey the decree of the Court in the
famous case of Marbury Ggt. Madison, and al
ways successfully asserted his official independ-
ence of the Court The whole subject is well
reviewed by Mr.. Van Buren, in his posthumous
work recently published, and he shows that
the abandonment of this doctrine by the party
is due to the influence of old Federalists
(such as Taney and Buchanan), and old Wings
(such as Mr. Brooks, who joined the Demo-
cratic party when it was impossible for them
to obtain political advancement in any other
way.


But as it is better for party to change its
doctrines than to persist in wrong course, it
is more important to ascertain which of the
views taken upon this subject is right than to
pass upon the consistency or uniformity of
faith of a political organization. AS an orig
inal question, then, ought the Senate, sitting
as court for the trial of impeachments, to re-
gard the decisions of the Supreme Court rs
conclusive upon the questions of law inv0lvedf


We sag that IL ought not. First, because the
Court of Impeachments is higher tribunal
than the Supreme Court. Secondly, because
tho Constitution did not give the Supreme
Court authority to bind the other departments
of the Government except where they came
- x,-;f
because the Government, as such, has no right
to be heard by the Supreme Court upon most
questions of constitutional law.


Our first point, if well taken, is decisive of
the whole question. No one pretends that a
superior court is bound by the decision OF an
inferior one, no matter how great may be the
advantages of the latter in point of ability and
learning. The decisions of Chancellor Kent
were repeatedly Overruled by the votes of
Senators in the New-York Court of Errors who
had not n 1.-THE of his learning or of his judi
cal faculty The law lords of Great Britain
are not infrequonty inferior in ability and
learning to the judges whose decisions they re-
verse Nor is this liberty of disregarding de-
cisions confined solely to appellate courts There
nre many cases which cannot be taken by ap-
neal from inferior courts. but the decisions
made in such cases are not regarded as in
the least binding upon the higher tribunals.
Even courts of coordinate jurisdiction do
not hold themselves bound by each others
rulings. Nothing is more common in New
York, where there are eleven distinct general
terms q. C., courts held by three or more
judges), all subject only TO the Court Of APP
pcals, than for one Of these tribunals to over