Year: 1868

To the Senators Of he United States:
have considered, with such care as the pres
sure Of other duties permitted, bill entitled
" An act to amend the judiciary act passed
the oath of September.


The first section of the bill meets my ap-
probation, as for the purpose of protecting
the rights Of property from the erroneous de-
cisions of inferior judicial tribunals 1t pro-
vides means for obtaining uniformity by an
appeal TO the Supreme Court Of the United
States in cases which have now become very
numerous aud Of much public interest, and in
which such remedy is not now allowed The
second section, however, takes away the right
of appeal to that court in eases which involve
the life and liberty of the citizen and leaves
them exposed to the Judgment of numerous
and inferior tribunals Ii is apparent that
the two sections were conceived in very
different spirit and | regret that my objection
to one imposes upon me the necessity of with
holding my sanction from the other | can
not give my assent to measure which pro-
poses to deprive any person restrained of his
or her liberty in violation of the Constitution
or of any treaty or law of the United States
from the right of appeal to the highest judi
cial authority known to our Government.
To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity is one of the declared OBJ
jects of the Federal Constitution. To assure
these, guarantees are provided in the same in
strument, as well as against unreasonable
searches and seizures; as against the suspen-
sion of the writ of habeaS corpus, unless
when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the
public safety may require it. 1t was doubt
less to afford the people the means of pro-
teeting and enforcing these inestimable privi-
eges that the jurisdiction which this bill
proposes to take away was conferred upon the
Supreme Court of the nation


The bill not only prohibits the adjudication
by the Supreme Court of cases in which ap-
peals may hereafter be taken, but interdicts
its jurisdiction on appeals which have already
been made to that high tribunal. If, there
fore, it should become law, it will, by its
retroactive operations, wrest from the citizen
remedy which he enjoyed at the time of his
appeal 1t will thus operate most harshly
upon those who believe that justice has been
denied them in the inferior Courts. The leg
islation proposed in the second section, it
seems to me, is not in harmony with the spir-
it and intention of the Constitution. Ii can
not fail to effect, most injuriously, the just
equipoise of our system of government, for it
establishes precedent, which, it followed,
may eventually sweep away every check on
arbitrary and unconstitutional legislation by
the Government.


The Supreme Court of the United States
has been viewed by the people as the true ex-
FOUNDER of the Constitution, and in the most
violent party conflicts its Judgment and de-
crees have always been sought and deferred
to with confidence and respect in public esti-
nation 1t combines judicial wisdom and
impartiality in greater degree than any 9TH
er authority known to the Constitution, and
any act which may be construed into or be
mistaken for an attempt to prevent or eyade
its decision on question which affects the
liberty of the citizen and agitates the country,
cannot fail to be attended with unpropitious
consequences. 1t will justly be held by a
large portion Of the people as an admission of
the unconstitutionality Of the act on which its
judgment may be forbidden or focestalled, and
may Interfere with that willing acquiescence
in its provisions which is necessary for the
harmonious and efficient execution of any law,


For these reasons, thus briefly and imper.
fectly stated, and for others of which want Of
time forbids the enumeration, deem it my
duty to Withhold my assent from this bill, and
to return it for the reconsideration OF Con.
gress ANDREW JOHNSON.


Washington, d. O., March 25, 1868.