21!)
PAPERS OF l\IIRAl;lEAU BuoNAPARTE LAMAR
at such times and places as may be fixed by law." In reasoning upon this subject the place to which this Court might be adjourned is cer- tainly a matter of the most perfect indifference. If Congress have a right to authorize the adjournment to the town of Nacogdoches they would have just the same right to authorize its adjournment to the town of San Augustine, to the City of Houston, the City of Galveston, the City of Velasco or to the town of Matagorda. This being ad- mitted (which is a proposition too clear to be denied) it is just as evident that they would have a right to authorize the adjournment of the session of the $upreme Court held at the City of Austin in the month of January to meet again at the City of Austin in the month of June next thereafter. And who could then doubt but that the sessions of the Supreme Court would be held semiannually or twice a year in place of being held annually or once a year as required by the above recited section of the Constitution? And if one session be held at Austin in the month of January and another be held at Nacog- doches in the month of June of the same year what intelligent mind can then doubt but that the sessions of the Supreme Court would be held semiannually in place of being held annually in compliance with the provision of the same section of the Constitution? What strongly corroborates this view of the question is that the first section under the above recited Article says "The judicial powers of the government shall be vested in one Supreme Court" & a portion of the 8th section under the same article says "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction only which shall be conclusive, within the limits of the Republic." These clauses when tested by the ordinary rules of construction would,· of themselves very clearly in- dicati'l that there was to be but one session of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was to have appellate jurisdiction of all cases that might arise any where within the limits of the Republic. Now the law proposed would give the Supreme Court at Austin no jurisdiction over cases that might originate East of the Brazos and that at N acag- doches would have no jurisdiction over causes that might originate West of that river. By· those friendly to the passage of the bill much reliance has been placed upon the words 'times and places' used in the clause 1 first above recited. If the clause had been that the sessions of the Supreme Court should be held annually at such time and place as might be fixed by law, the strict constructionist of the Constitution might have contended that such time and p~ace being once fixed by 1 law could not be changed. Under the words now used in the Constitu- tion no such constitutional difficulty can arise The first law at first required that the sessions of the Supreme Court should be held an- nually in the month of December & in the City of Houston; now it requires that it shall be held annually in the month of January & in the city of Austin; and none have doubted the constitutionality of the law effecting these changes. And these changes completely fill up, as it were, the words 'times and places' used in the Constitution. When it is recollected that the causes to be tried at N acog- doches are [to] be entirely different from those to be tried at Austin it is just as inconsistent to say that the one is thr, adjourned session
Powered by FlippingBook