Year: 1868




alone was fully apparent By their interfe-
renee with the executive department and
the supreme court Had they been sue
cessful in their incpiont design we no
longer could pride ourselves Ia our free
and democratic Institutions, but would
have to be content with all the evils
known to an aristocracy. In their attempt
to make Grant dictator Of the southern
states they favored monarchy In short.
all their legislation within the last few
years has been ayerse 20 the advantages
and welfare of the peot'9 as well as to a
democratic form Of government Why
the radicals are opponents Of the supreme
court is easy to understand, but inexpli-
cable how they can oppose it and assert
the essential nationality Of the United
States. That court as the one depart
merit Of the general government has uni
iormly been ranged on the side Of the
soyreign people one and indisisible; the
executive and the legislature have coca
sionaily varied, this never. To use the
language Of an eminent law writer, "With-
out the aid OF the supreme court there
would now have beec no nationality, sim
ply because there would have been no ua-
ton" lie who examines the history OF
court cannot doubt the correctness OF
those statements


This body called upon to decide cases
arising under the constitution cannot
evadc the summons and answer the the
call with uncertain response. In its first
great judgment involving the interpreta-
tion of the organic law <Chesholm o.
Georgia, 1899 it proclaimed the absolute
natiooality and paramount supremacy OF
the one people with clearness which
leaves nothing to be supplied. The im-
p0rtance IF Its judicial actions and Of its
high national principles, which make a
part Of the fundamental law, may be ap-
preciated when we reflect that every ex-
traordinary statute of the present and OF
the late congress must be sustained (if
sustained at a!l) by reference to these
doctrines. With the exception Of three
instances, the only laws which have ever
been declared invalid, were one or two
conferring jurisdiction upon the supreme
court itself or upon the inferior tribunals
While on the other hand many important
enactmepts have been upheld and sternly
enforced against the states, and congres:
has been secured in its position as an i'm
perial legislature. Then why is it that
the radical republican party wish to de
stroy this fundamental power of national
ty by limiting its rights SO as to make i
imperative? Because for the instance.
in which the court has pronounced agans
the validity of United States statutes
they are the Dred Scot case, the Test Oath
case, and the case of Nilligan. The Just
ice of the decision in the Dred Scot cas-,
cannot for moment be doubted; but in
asmuch as slavery perished under radica
rule, SO perlshed that great decision
Who is he who prides himself in being al
American citizen dares say that the pow
ers of the supreme court ought to be abro
gated because Of its decision in the Tes
; Oath case, and in the case OF Millsan?
| venture boldly to say that there is not t
be found in all the histories of the earth
single oath of that kind which has not re
maincd cause Of shame and regret t
those who advocated it after the passion G
| the hour had passed away, or which ha
not been pilloried as an object Of execra
tion when posteritv sat in judgment


1t reminds one of the inquisitorial oath
by which man was compelled to purg
himself in the ecclesiastical courts of Ena
land, "The canonical doctrine of purga
ton" says Blackstone in his commenta
ries, whereby the persons were oblige


to answer upon oath to any matter howey
ever criminal that might be objecte
against continued to the middle Of the las
century to be applied to the sprituo
courts, when the legislature was obliged t
interpose to teach them a lesson of simila
moderation. by the statue of Is, 6 ar


IL, c., II, it is enacted that it shall no


be lawful for any bishop or ecclesiastica
Judge to tender or administer to any per
son whatsoever, the oath usually called c
oGcio, or any other oath whereby he ma.


be compelled to confess, accuse, or purg
himself of any criminal matter, or thin


whereby he may be liable to any censur
or punishment"


This practice which was a remnant o
the dark ages was, as you see, abollshe
by an act Of parliament passed under the
reign of Charles the second. viii th
radicals of the United State, persist il
retrograding toward the days of p urgatio
GA tbs and show less liberality and enlight
ened policy than narrow minded an
heart-contracted Stuart? Their action