Rensselaer Union, Volume 3, Number 44, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 July 1871 — The Judiciary and the Democracy. [ARTICLE]

The Judiciary and the Democracy.

Tnßissue which has been uppermost in Ameriftin politics ever siuce the war closed is no longer directly Congressional. The amendments needed have all (been submiited to the several States, and duly adopted. Thu legislation specially callul lor by tljose amendmehts has been enacted, it needed no throwing up of the Democratic “ sponge " to cuu the contest on that line. It anything is to bo done, it must be upon another arena The new depart ture is significant, simply in the recognition of an accomplished fact. The completion of the work, so far as concerns amending the Constitution and framing laws, amounts, virtually, to a transfer of jurisdiction. What was a question before Congress and the several State Legislatures is henceforth a question before the-Judiciary of the United States, the third estate of the realm. The Democracy has all the time protested that these laws are unconstiutioual, and that the amendments were never legally adopted. The party adheres to that position still—rhe most enthusiastic “departists " no less than the hardshells of the party. If the Democracy could regain control of the Exi cutive and Legislative branches of the Government, the Judicial would soon follow.; The Democratic minority would be reinforced by additional Judge 3,, and the legislation to enforce the amendments in question would be pronounced unconstitutional. From such a decision there would be no escape. The right to pronounce upon the validity of a law is denied the English Judiciary, but is unquestioned in this country. The programme goes still farther. There is a way to test the validity of the amendments themselves. It is more roundabout and hedged up, but the Democracy is evidently beDt on walking in it. A law of Congress designates tlxe Secretary of State as the proper official to formally make known the ratification of a constitutional amendment. His duty is tqerely declaratory, not judicial. As a matter of fact not one of the fifteen declarations thus far made by the Secretary of State has ever been called In question; but such an issue could bo raised The Constitution prescribes that, an amendment submitted to the State Legislatures can only be adopted by the indorsment of a tnree-fourths majority. Should it be doubtful whether the requisite indorsement had been received, the question would have to be decided by the Supreme Court of the United Stales. It follows, therefore, that if the Democrats could control the Judiciary, they could nullify the amendment, which they still insist were never legally ratified. Those who profess to accept these amendments are careful in the method and extent of their apotfptance. They are in force to day, and must remain so until set aside in the way mentioned. This i 3 incontestable, and the acceptance of the more progressive Demo* crat goes no farther. If iu position to act at all, the whole party would join in a judicial plot to overthrow the entire reconstruction part of our laws, organic and statutory. Not. a word can be found in all the platforms and editorials of the new departure intimating the contrary, while there are continual outcroppings of the plot itself. Even the cautious New Y'ork World cannot keep the secret. Iu a recent article it pronounced the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.-the “offspring of gross usurpation of power, passed by force, fraud and perfidy.” If a majority of the Suprcma Court took the same position, the amendments could be blotted out.of existence.

There remains only one point to consider in this connection: Has the peril of constitutional nullification a limit in time, or must perpetual guard be kept over the two last amendments to prevent their destruction ? Although no attempt was ever made to judicially nullify any part of the Federal Constitution, and no exact precedent can be pointed out, the principle involved is well established. We can best state it by an illustration : The Constitution of California, like our own, requires that the title of a law shall correspond with the nature of the law itself. This provision was habitually ignored by several legislatures before a test case was brought into court. The defense admitted that the Constitution had not been complied with, but showed that the same was true in numberless ether cases, and that if at that late day that clause of the Constitution should be enforc* a, the evil in the upsetting of the existing order of things would be immense. It was further shown that this latter consideration had in many cases deterred courts from doing wLat they would otherwise have done. This defense was held valid. According to the rule shown to have found general acceptance in the best courts of this country and England, it will, in a few years, be too late to so much as entertain the question of the validity of these amendments. If the Democracy cannot tarry the next Presidential and Congressional elections, it will be too late in 1876 to raise this po.itical issue. There is, in other words, only one way left to set aside the new features of the Constitution, and if the next attempt to open up the path should fail, that would end, altogether and forever, the reconstruction issue. We are all weary of it, and long for rest or change, but there must be no disarmament until the battle has been fought and won in 1872. —Chicago Journal.