OMINOUS TENDENCIES by W. N. G.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Feb 6, 1896

OMINOUS TENDENCIES.

By W. N. G.

Quite a sensation was recently created by the United States Secretary of State, who intimated that he might invoke an ancient press-muzzling law against the enterprise of the New York World. That paper secured by cable a brief expression of sentiment from the Prince of Wales regarding the position of the President on the dispute between England and Venezuela, and an expression of Baron Rothschild on the prospect of selling in England a proposed new issue of United States bonds. The publication of these expressions was displeasing to the administration, and Secretary of State Olney, together with some senators, proposed to call up this old law of 1799 and enforce it against the proprietor of the World. Some of the provisions of the act (known as the Alien and Sedition Law) expired by express limitation; but other parts, even then unpopular and since deemed obsolete, are still available for evil.

It is thought that all such laws are made void by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. But the Supreme Court, in its decision of a case under the Lottery Law, February 1, 1892, recognizes the right of Congress to deprive a citizen, without a legal trial, of the right to send his communications (or papers) through the mail. The court that would thus ignore a plain provision of the Constitution in one instance would not hesitate to do so in another, no matter how ancient the law in question might be.

The squelching of the iniquitous lottery business was a most desirable object, but to do so in a manner to leave Congress the power to forbid the carrying of printed matter through the mails on any pretext or caprice, was a most dangerous precedent, and one which must be the precursor of tyranny. It is on the same principle as the condition in Canada, where the postmaster general may exclude from the mails any paper or matter whose teaching he may deem injurious to the public.

One of the most dangerous doctrines extant is that the Supreme Court is “the highest authority in the land.” This is an assertion that we hear so often, and from so many quarters, that it is coming to be deemed an actual fact. It so far obtains that many people suppose the Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution for all the other departments of government; but as a matter of fact it is only a coördinate branch of the government, deciding constitutional questions when they come before it in actual cases. Andrew Jackson contended that when he, as President, took the oath to support the Constitution, he was obligated to support it according to his own understanding of it, and not as understood by some one else. So he vetoed the National Bank Bill passed by Congress during his term, on the ground that it was unconstitutional, although the Supreme Court had previously decided that the measure was constitutional.

The idea that the Supreme Court is the highest authority in the land leads to all manner of false conclusions, not the least of which is that its mere dictum is law, and that, as in the Louisiana lottery decision and in the “Christian nation” decision, its rulings or decisions may warrant Congress in taking steps not warranted by the Constitution.

This idea that the Supreme Court is the highest authority in the land, so generally imbibed by the people, seems to have taken hold of the court also; hence the tendency to add extraneous opinions to legitimate decisions, giving in advance the position of the court on questions discussed but still undecided among the people. In this way the court indicates in advance what actions of Congress it would indorse, thus becoming a virtual monitor not only of the legislative branch of the government, but of the executive branch also. To assume that it is the highest authority is to assume that it is a veritable oligarchy, with unlimited power; and the assumption that its mere dictum has legitimately the force of law, is to assume that the court has the power to make law which is not even subject to a veto. Such a doctrine virtually lays the Constitution on the shelf, and subjects the country to the caprices of the Supreme Court. W. N. G.