Democratic Sentinel, Volume 3, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 30 January 1880 — SUPREME COURT. [ARTICLE]

SUPREME COURT.

As things are running* 'why not change the Constitution and make this Court a part of the law-making power? Now, before a, law can be passed, it has to receive, the sanction of the Legislative and Executive departments of the Government? Why not add the judicial? then we mayknow, when they all agree, that we have a law that will stand, and not be liable, after great expense of labor, time and money of two of the grand divisions of the Government, to be overthrown or nullified by the counteraction or decision of the oth< jr, as is now the case.

There seems to be something incpnstent/if not ridiculous, in the idea of a government with three “co-ordi-nate” departments, and at the same s-time one, have the power to override and nullify the actions of tho othersIt is an absurdity which we think the framers of our institutions never contemplated. We think such action of 'the judiciary a mere resumption of power not authorized by the constitution. But it has been yielded to. or tolerated by the people from the commencement, till now it seems to be the settled conviction o-f almost all our citizens, that this is the law of the land. Jefferson in llis day denounced the supreme court as a set of “miners and sappers” that would Ultimately undermine or overthrow the liberties of the people- The U. S. court, and the State courts, are no doubt composed of the best, lawyers in tlie country,generally. The members of the Supreme Court of the United States at the time -of 1 lieu appointment are the favorites of the President, in power, and, who eo’d expect that they would rvot be mo: re or less partisan ! In political questions we may expect thf>m to favi lithe party views. Look at Maine, now. Look at South Carolina. Loc >k at the Dred Scott decis ion,” and tl le favorable Greenback d eeision of tine United States court, and now tl he same party are for a different decision from the san\e court übder a different necessity. We say maJ <e these courts a part of the law-ma, Icing power, or eonfir t e them to the legitimate business of deciding cas< ?s arising under the acts of Congress and the Legislat- ares. They should not be allowed to decide politici il questions. Thi g vvas the opinion o f Thos. H. Bento and many others ij i his day. • j

If the people continue to yield to the usurpations of the court, they might as well ha ve a king or dictator at once, as one head could be more readily got at than a number When a bill is introdubed in either branch of Congress, involving any constitutional question it is generally submitted or referred to the “judiciary committee,” composed of the best lawyers in the country. They examine it carefully in all its bearings, and recommend its passage. It then gees through the same process in the other house and passes. It then goes to the president who, with his advisers, carefully considers it.— The president signs the bill. It is then a law. He and all concerned are sworn to support the constitution. A case comes up under this new law, and is carried to the supreme court. They dispose of the case at once by deciding the law or act under which it arose “unconstitutional,” and consequently null and void. This is the end of it. and the act is dead, according to the sense of the people. We say, with the Chicago Times of the 24th January, “that members of Congress should act independently of the action of the court.” We say Congress should act on the currency questions, and all others, without any waver as to probable court decisions. We*tnust cease to tolerate this airogaut assumption of power on the part of the court or oui liberties will soon he gone, and we shall be doomed to live under an absolute tyranny.

R. S. W.

Don’t fail to go to C. C Starr’s new store for anything you want in the Grocery or Queensware line, and examine his goods and prices before making your purchases. Standard goods and low prices, for cash, is his motto.