Year: 1868

rule tho most explicit adjudications Of another
The only questions, then, which need to De
answered in order to determine this branch OF
the case, are O. whether the Senate, when try
ing an impeachment, is court in the same
sense as the Supreme Court, and (2) whether 1t
ia a national court of as high or higher degree.
That it is, in the fullest sense of the term, a
"courfr is too clear to admit of the shadow OF
doubt. The members take judicial oath. Tho
proceedings are Of q purely judicial character
All the precedents as well as all the arguments
which have ever been used upon the subject,
show that when the Senate tries an impeach-
ment it does so not as legislative, but as
judicial body. 1t is equally clear that it is not
a tribunal inferior to the Supreme Court. Its
decisions are final, and can be reversed 10y no
other body whatever. The subjects which come
before it are more important than those which
can be brought before any other tribunal in
America If it he said that ,he narrow limits
to which its jurisdiction is confined make 1t
inferior we answer that such an argument
makes the Supreme Court of the United States
inferior to the Supreme Court OF Minnesota,
since the latter court has a jurisdiction tenfold
wider than the former, as far as mere quantity
and variety arc concerned. 1t is the quality,
rather than the quantity, Of cases coming be-
fore a court, which determines its rank. III 1t
were not so, Justices of the Peace would be
the first dignitaries in the land. But common
sense settles this question. A tribunal which
can by judicial sentence depose every judge
on the bench OF the Supreme Court, can
not, in tho nature of things, be inferior
to the Judges whom it condemns. If 1t
were, it would be possible for those
Judges in anticipation of their trial, to declare
that the Senate had no power TO try them;
and under this new tangled doctrine, the Court
of Impeachments would be bound to submit to
the decision of the criminals arraignod before
it, The Court for the trial of impeachments
is and must necessarily be, the highest judicial
tribunal in the land, taking counsel from the
reported opinions of every other court III the
world, but submitting to the dictation OF none.


Our other points are so interviewer in their
relations that they must be taken together.
The doctrine that the Supreme Court has
power TO interpret the Constitution so as to
control the other departments OF the Govern
ment is without warrant in the Constitution or
in reason. If the trainers OF our Government
had intended such result, they would have
made the Executive and the Legislature di-
rectly amenable to the Supreme Court. In
stead of this, it is notorious that no
action can be brought against the United
States in that Court. The only way
in which the judgment of the court can be
obtained upon any question of constitutional
law, is by a controversy between private ind-
viduals conducted by their counsel and in


4 a "a
matter of right and rarely as matter of
favor. Thus the Dred Scott case was decided
without the slightest opportunity being gwen
to the executive or legislative departments OF
the Government to be heard So the tremen-
dous question OF the validity of the Legal Tender
act has Just been argued by private counsel;
and the executive branch of the Government,
which has thousand times more at stake in
the controversy than any private sultor has
since pctitioned, as matter OF pure favor
from the court, for leave to argue the ques-
ton before it is decided. Such leave has, we
see, been granted but was entirely optional with
the court TO grant or refuse il. And can it be
that all the vast interests of our Government
are to be at the mercy of n decision, made,
perchance, upon the whimsical arguments OF
backwoods lawyers, or, as was clearly the TACT
in the Dred Scott case, upon the hearing OF
collusive and unreal suit


1t is useless to say in reply that the Judges
may be trusted to determine the law without
the aid of competent advocates at the bar.
Every judge and every lawyer of experience
knows that this is utterly untrue. Nor is it
enough to say that the hardship is no greater
than is suffered by private individuals, whose
causes are constantly prejudged in this way.
Private wrongs bear no comparison with the
paralysis inflicted on the National Government
by a single erroneous decision depriving
it of its powers. Nor is it any answer
to say that the Court may bo depended
upon to permit the United States to
be heard whenever necessary. The rights
of the nation cannot be left at the mercy Of
any ones good nature. Moreover in the ma
jority of cases. the Attorney General has no
means of knowing that questions of this kind
are coming up for decision; and the judgment
itself is his first source of information. And,
finally, il it is said that the United States might
provide for their own protection, by means of ac-
tions to be brought directly against the Executive,
it is enough to reply that they have not done
so, and that this very fact shows that they
never meant to submit to the jurisdiction of the
Court.


PUTTING THINGS OUT or SIGHT,


L.. ,,It xnpft