Year: 1864




HERALD. We had seen a very able re-
port against it last fall from the Com
mittee to which the subject was refer
red by the Legislature, and had supposed
that it would arrest farther proceedings
in the premises; but such, it appears, is
not the case. According to the state
ment of the HERALD, the measure was
enacted as a law by the Legislature, with
the proviso that it should not be pro-
nounced unconstitutional by the Su-
preme Court. 1t is upon this phase OF
the question that we propose to make a
few remarks.


The mode of legislation prescribed
for the State by the people is perfectly
clear and well defined, and a strict ad-
herence to it is of vital Importance
This mode requires that measure, to
become law, should pass the tive
branches of the Legislature, the House
and Senate, by a majority in each, and
then be laid before the Governor for his
approval. If the Governor approves it,
or If he fails to act on it within five
days, or if, disappearing of it, it again
passes both branches by majority in
each, it then becomes law. This is
the mode prescribed by the fundamental
law of the State in which there is no
provision made, or a word said, for
submitting measure to the action of
the Supreme Court in order to it's be-
coming a law. The judiciary depart
ment of the government of the State, is
not invested with legislative power
but on the contrary it has been most
zealously excluded from it, as one of the
most necessary safeguards of liberty
The Constitution of the State says plain
ly, in so many words, that the legis-
lative, executive and judiciary depart
ments shall be separate and distinct, so
that neither exercise the powers proper
ly belonging to the other" 8o


1t is within the power of the Supreme
Court to decide, in any given case, as to
the constitutionality of ameasure when
it has once become a law, but it was
never designed that that court should
have voice in making the laws for to
be both the maker and the Judge Of the
law is supposed to be, by all free
states of modern times, the extreme of
despotism. 1t is very true that our
Supreme Court is composed of upright
and able men whose action is not likely
to be controlled by any party or politi-
cal views in this present case but
precedent becomes established, which,
if habitually practiced, would pervert
the purest body of men in the world,
and thus corrupt justice at its very
fountain head 8d3 g g1sa t


1t appears to us as certain, that the
extending of the elective franchise to
the military, tends to carry political
corruption into the army; and it is not
unnatural, therefore, that the means re-
sorted to to attain this end, should car
ry the same taint into the judiciary de-
partment. i~ Edafa Eaita t5tEt
+ Ii the spirit Of innovation mast be
INDUCED in against our institutions, in
time like this, when firmness and sta
bility and adherence to fundamental
principles are especially needed if our
institutions are not free enough, and if
after enjoying their freedom fer nearly
a hundred years we feel that our liber-
ties require still greater scope, why
should we not direct our innovations
against the abuses of our liberties, as
well as for the extension of our privi-
leges? If voters are needed at home to
supply the places of absentees, why not
extend the elective franchise to women
and minors? Or if absentees must vote,
then why not give the brave men who
are absent on sea and land fighting for
the liberties of the country, three or
four votes each? If it is answered that
measures like these would be revolu-
tionary, it may be said, in reply, that
they who begin innovations upon our
institutions will have no power to stop
them, or to prevent them from becoming
revolutionary. IF innovations could be
stopped where the innovators wished
them stopped, the rebel states, from be-
ing of the republican form of govern
ment, would have become an indepen-
dent, slaveholding aristocracy before
now.


If we are not mistaken the policy of
the Dred Scott decision was inaugural
ed at one and the same time with Mr..
Buchanan's administration. The Chief
Justice who administered the oath of
Office to the Chief Magistrate at his in
auguration, imposed upon him at the
same time tacit obligation to the poll
cy of that decision /; the Judge was to
decide from the seat Of justice, and the
President was to act accordingly while
in the chair of state. But this mon
strous perversion of the judiciary de
partment for political purposes, only
stimulated the slave power to renewed
a<Fnr r..t A.: |