HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.milegres/ayoftesreme0001 and id is 1 raw text is: WASHINGTON.
Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and
luseparable
SATURDAY, MAY 26, 1860.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT.
In the recent political discussions which have en-
gaged the attention of Congress and the country
Much has been said with regard to the legitimate
place occupied in our civil system by the Supremo
Court of the United States. The fundamental law
of the land ordains that the judicial power of the
United States shall extend to all cases, in luw and
equity, arising under the Constitution, the laws of
the United States, and treaties madl or which shall
be made under their authority.
It has been common for our Democratic friends
(in this following the lead of Mr. Jefferson) to deny
the plenary jurisdiction ascribed to the Court in these
words, and to make a reservation, in behalf of the
sovereign States respectively, against the um1pirage
of the Federal Judiciary in all cases involving po-
litical questions of constitutional constructi ni. Of
late years, it is true, they have seemed to show i
greater degree of deference for the decisions of this
high tribunal, and certain representatives of the
party, apparently ignoring the antecedents by which
they were committed to a contrary theory of con-
stitutional interpretation, have not hesitated to chal-
lenge for the adjudication of the Supreme Court an
unhesitating obedience, as at once the test of political
orthodoxy and the standard of civil duty. To this
effect the New York Journal of Commerce, a leading
Democratic press, recently observed as follows:
The oily criterion of excelleice, in judging of the char-
acter of a political organization, is its eonmiromity to tho
spirit of the Constitution, is manif eted in the practici
operation of goverament. To aid the judgueivt iu this
amatter, we have the decisionn of the muprrme Court, the
only anthoritatir' rXposition of the Coustimu tion. All ire
need to know, there fore, in da0'rinin this question of
Political orthodoy, is, to Ithat rtzent this or that party coin-
rides with and most -coulmsly maintains the decistiits of this
au-,nst tribunal oin constitutional qlufstions.
We had always supposed that this was high I 'd-
ral doctrine ; ]ut since we are now informed that the
Democracy are willing to have their political or-
thodoxy tried by the rule thus defined, we think
it will be easy to show that, on their own confession,
they have forfeited the support of such conservative
journals as our New York contemporary.
To this end it is only necessary to recall the fact
that the Democracy, lately assembled in National
Convention at Charleston, had tla express opportu-
nity to endorse the very doctrine propounded by
the Journal of Connerce, but, as every body knows,
instead of doing so, they repudiated it by an over-
whelming majority. It will be remenwred by our
readers that ill the platform submitted to the Con-
veit ion by the minority of the Committee on Reso-
lutions, and which was adopted by a ioiirity of the
body, the following prwamlme and resolution formed
a part of the original report:
Ioasmuch as diterences of opinion exist in the Demo-
cratit party a1 to the nature and extent of the powers of a
Territlrial Legislature, al as to the powIrs Iad duties
of Cogres, under tilte Coastitutiot of the United Statas,
over the institulion of slvery within th Territories:
Besolved, Thot the DI)moIrtic party will abide by the
dirisions of the ,Saprrune C nert of the United States on the
qIuestion of constitutional la.
'This preamble and resolution, we need not say,
were deliberately rejected by a vote of 21 yeas
against 2'-1 nays, and were tiloe deliberately rejIected
he'ause they aflirmed the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in questions of Constitutional construction.
In confirmation of this assertion, if any were neces-
sary, we have but to cite the testimony of the intel-
ligent editor of tle Wi1lington (North Carolina)
Journal, who was a membor (of the Charleston Con-
ventionl, and who, in his paper of the 7th instant,
writing soon after his return from the Convention,
remarks as follows](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.milegres/ayoftesreme0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)