The Supreme Court

On Tuesilay evening a fine audience assembled in University hall to listen to Judge Thomas M. Cooley, of Ann Arbor and Washington, on "Our Federal Judiciary ; its Place in our Political System." He was introduced by Prof. Henry Wade Rogers as the greatest living constitutional lawyer and as greater than Jnstice Story. Prof. Rogers said that, so far as he knew, this was the first course of lectures of the kind ever given in the United States, and that the credit belonged to Prof. Henry C. Adaras. Prof. Rogers announced that the next lecture of the course would be tomorrow evening by Henry Hitchcock, LL. D., of St. Louis, Mo., one of the leading lawyers of this country, having as lus subject the influence of Chief Justice Marshall on the constitutional development of the country. .Tudge Cooley referred briefly to the origin of the constitution, to the wisdom of the founder in preserving state governments and inherited systems of liberty ; to thefounding of the" constitution on the theory of sovereignty in the people ; to the fact that the constitution of federal government is wholly embraced in the written instrument, which constitutes the final test of law and of right in respect to the matters covered by it; to the fact that nnder such circumstances there ehould be no such legislative omnipotence as exists in oiher countries where the constitution is not the origin of government, but is given to the people by an existing sovereign authority, and to the important conseijuence resulting from this - that the judiciary may pass upon the power of the legislalure itself, as expressed in solpinn acts of government. He then proceeded to point out and illtistrate the position of the judiciary nnder tlie federal system, and to nhow how and why it becomes final authority on questions of constitutional construetion and law, so far hs they concern federal questions; to print out federal questions, and to show that undcr the urant of judicial authority certain controversies - such for instance as those arising between states- are referred to the federal judiciary, not because they represent federal questions, but nevertheless for reasons which pertain to tlie peace and stability of the Union. He pointed out, however, Ihat there may be and are pubjectsentirely within the scope of federal power whieh may be acted upon by the otherdepartments of the government and their action be Snal, without any power on the part of the jndiciary to interfere, fortlie reaeon hat the questions acted upon are purely political in character, as would be the case if a controversy should spring p regarding the lawfu! government of a state, and should he passed upon by he President or by Congres-i or by bot h. He nlso showed that it was possible for the judgment nf a court, which eould lot be enforced without exeoutive aid, tobe nullified by the refusal of that lid, but he pointed out that the probaaility of ssrious disorders in government from any Ruch cause was very slight, and that these were as likely to ob-truct the operations of otber departments of the government as those of the jndiciary. Historical cases were given in illustration. The lecturer then proceeded to show what it was that gave jurisdiction for an exercise of the judical power in any larticular case, and to show that withut such jurisdiction the ntterances of he court, howeversolemnlypronounced, were without authority, añd eited cases n which the fupreme court had been disregarded forthisreason.among them being the Dred-Scott case. He then referred to the original organization of the court, and to the :hoice of Chief Jnstice Jy, as being ;hat not only of a jurist, but of a etatesnan of broad views and most eminenty fitted of all the public men then tnown to the country for the position ;o which he was called. Judge Cooley recalled the difflculties under wh'ch the government was or;anized, and that the questions with which the judiciary would have to deal were not only in themselves intricate ind troublesome, but peculiaHy susceptible to appeal to public prejudice and passion. He showed how necessary it was that the man who dealt with these ;hould be something more than a mere lawyer. He then referred to the great case of Chisholm against Georgia, in which the defense, on the ground of state sovereignty, refused to recognize the authority of the federal court. He showed that in this case the nature of the constitution necessarily came under review, and quoted irom the opinión of Chief Jusiice Jay to show the authoritative decisión that thepeopleof lle United States had by sovereign act formed the constilution to make more perfect the Union whieh had existed before, and went on to say that it must logically follow that the Nation as a sovereignty is possessed of all those powere of independent action and selfprotection which the successors of Jay subsequently demonstrated were by implicalion conferred upon it. Thesubsequent career of Chief Justice Jay was referred to- his resignation, liis di8tingnished services in other fields.the offer of reappointment to the chief justiceship, which was urged upon him by President Adams, and the fact that it was only after he bad declined to accept that the President with rare perception of fitness filled th place by the apjioiutment of John Marshall. He alsoreviewed brieiiy other decisions of the court before Marshall's time, particularly the case of Calder against Buil, in which the meaning of expost-facto law was defined, and in which also it is pointfid out that in respect to really state questions the decisions of the state courts must be conclusive. The lecture then closed as followsThe general survev of the federaf judicial authority will beconcluded here. The supremo court has seemed to be graMually gaining in dignitv and power with the growth of the country and of it8 interests, but itsreal importance was never greater than at flrst, and the judges wlio ocenpied the bench before the time of Marshall are entitled te have it said of t hem that what they die was of incalculable vulue to represent ative institutions.not in America alone but throughout the world. Tliey vindica ted the nationalcharaiter of tlip conslitution they asserted and maintained the supretnacy of the National authority they made plain forthestatesmeii as wel asthejiiristswhoEhoukl conieafterthem the true.path ofoonslitut onal interpretaron, and while doing sothey also jus tified in the Mates as regards purelj state qnestions, the same right of fina jndament whicli they asserted for the Union in respect to quesüons which were National. F rom that time on it was reasonably certain that wliatever party mightbe in possession of thegovernment, and how ever mnch when out of power, in lts conventions and tlirongh its leaders it might have lauded and mugnified state riglits and state sovereignty, i would, when in possession of piwer vindícate the National supremacy aaainst any attemptto nullify it, so tha' whether a Jackson or a Lincoln should be at the head of thegovernment, when the trial of the constitution shoulu come, the ntterance of the executive wriuld be clear and determined, and al ail cost and all hazard the National life wotild be defended and an indissoluble Union be perpetuated.