| Show GRAVE ERRORS OP OF THE uta SUPREME COURT THAT distinguished 11 jurist judge edward G loring has had the temerity to oppose oppose two recent decisions of the supreme court of the united states notwithstanding the dictum of the so called democratic convention of this territory that I 1 all attempts to call in question or defeat decisions of courts of last resort are factious and revolutionary probably judge loring never heard of the singular kind of democrats who enunciated that sentiment or he might have hesitated before pu blushing bli shing his article in the north ame awe mil that magazine for august contains a very strong paper from judge lor ings ing spen entitled I 1 the drift toward centralization it discusses the rulings of the supreme court of the united states in the case of Ju juillard IllarI vs greenman and in that of the united states vs lee by the first the government may create whatever money it may require to maintain itself in power by the other if the government unlawfully take the property of the citizen he has no legal means for its recovery rev overy bothof both of these conclusions are shown to be contrary to the plainest fundamental principles of our form of government covern ment in len the lc legal I 1 tender decision the majority of ta the e court held that congress has his the power to make the treasury notes of the united states lawf lawful ua tender in the payment of private debts i e legal money 0 of f the country and they cite the tile constitutional provisions that congress may borrow money pay debts gel gei laz iaz lay and and coin money I 1 each of these provisions is taken up by judge loring and it is clearly demonstrated rated that they do not apply to the case in question to borrow money is not to make money it is only to obtain it from some one else to I 1 pay debts I 1 only authorizes the application leation of money not its lac ture to galay lay and collect taxes merely involves assessment and collection of money due from the people the phrase ic to coin money carries with it a definite meaning and plainly signifies making money of coin an and nothing further buthis on this point judge loring says I 1 when the constitution was formed the people of the united states held all sovereign powers and among them the power ia to say of wet what the money of the country should consist they could have conferred this power as they held it and vested it in its entirety in congress ress but this they did not do and instead instead they conferred cont erred on congress the power to coin money i which is the only power to make money specified in the constitution here the power and the means for executing execution it are both specified in the same word coin this manifests the intent that the power and the means of exec executing utin it should be inseparable to sep gep separate arat e means as paper for coin would woula notia cotla the words of chief justice marshall consist with the spirit and letter of ile lle the constitution 4 W but would violate both all of a power that cau can be con yewed is the use of it and the specia cation of one use precludes the impei cation of any other Express it m jao jac cessare taciturn taci from the nature of powers every grant of a specified power is a limitation of that power in the same way and for the same reason that a grant of an estate is in the accurate language of the common law a limitation of that estate and every limitation ofa of a power w er is a prohibition to transcend scedo i it t for if it had not that effect it would not be a limitation this is sound constitutional and democratic mo cratic doctrine the attempt to vest in the national governments pow ers that are reserved to the people which is being repeatedly made and favored by a republican supreme court is dangerous to the institutions of the country and it is the privilege of every patriot to c expose 0 and oppose the heresy as far astl asti as his s slight licht and opportunities port unities extend it makes no difference who sustains the wrong the supreme court of the united states is no more above criticism than any other body deriving its powers f from rom the people it is not only the right but the duty of enlightened men to call in question decisions of that court which are revolutionary in their tendency or subversive of the rights of the people in judge d loring choring shows the dinn diff difference arence between between the governments of europe which have power to issue bills of credit and make them by legislation a legal tender and the congress of the united states the former are eign powers congress Is no more sovereign than the judicial or executive branch of on oun our government parliament may do whatever it is not prohibited from doln doin doing while congress can only do that ahi which c h it is specifically authorized to do it has no sovereignty the constitution did not create a national sovereignty pa as the court ou t claims but the national sovereignty the people of 0 the United States created the constitution con conferred conferrer ferrea certain specified powers on tile the national government and retained the fhe rest for the individual states or the still sovereign people the dritt drift toward centralization is to be resisted no matter from what direction it may come because it is calculated to destroy the very foundations of the citadel of liberty erected by the fathers of our we hear much of the incidental powers of the government chief austice justice marshall has enunciated the true principle which has cometo come to be generally admitted that this government is one onu of enumerated powers each of these enumerated powers is distinct and independent and as the same great authority has declared cannot be implied as incidental to other powers or used as a means of execution executing them such I 1 incidental powers as are vested in the government are merely the means for executing execution the enumerated powers they 1 do I lo 10 it not so go beyond if bl congress angress can add to its powers one that is not enumerated it can add any number and the enumeration or specification would thus be in vain and our government would be one of enumerated powers the limitation must be complete and absolute or it would cease to exist these principles are of great importance to the people of the territories particularly because congress has assumed so much in relation to them for which no warrant can be found in the constitution and the supreme court has aided in the unlawful ul assumption of the national Legisla tureby its loose 0 opinions inions and unsound these all tend in the direction of that centralization which is rightly viewed by b thoughtful al people as subversive of the system which the constitution vitalizes vita lizes and sustains in the other case decided by the supreme court the ownership of the arlington estate was decided buethe but the principle involved was something vas vastly aly higher than mere property value e it was the sovereignty question again on this point judge loring says in this country we have no personal sovereign but instead a supreme authority dhority y vested in the people of the united states this authority is impersonal and incapable of personal representation its will is declared only by the law hence the phrase and the thu fact that ours js is a government of law and as no one can be the abent agent of the law for anything uh uhl lawful awful it follows that the sovereign the tile peo people le of the united states cannot be a bapty party to any transaction by the illegal act of any of their officers so that any alo violation of law by an officer is his unauthorized and unofficial act for which he is liable individually this is solid democratic doctrine and is irrefutable the opinion of the majority of the supreme court of the united states to the contrary notwithstanding there were four diss dissenting judges against the ave who formulated form the decision and this as judge long says brings uncertainty uncertainly into the f future U audit and it also shows that decisions by the court of last resort although final in legal practice are not infallible nor beyond reconsideration Ide ration by the court itself and everybody in the land has the right to criticise criticism critic ise such opinions show their error and expose their inconsistency with that instrument which is as binding upon ane highest court as upon the humblest citizen ezen cee cem I 1 |
