312
TEXAS STATE LIBRARY Although the caption of the Act purports a different thing, yet in my opinion the Bill itself does provide for a ~pecial and independent Court. It divides the Republic into two Judicial Districts, making all the cases in one section of country, appealable to the court at Nacogdoches, and those arising in another, to be cognizable only at Austin. Two sets of distinct ministerial and Executive officers are to be appoint~d, which could not be done if there were but one court. They are to keep their records separate and independent; and the business of each Court to be conducted in the same manner as if the two tr1bunals had no connection with each other. Under such· arrangements, no matter what may br written in the caption of the Bill we cannot with propriety say that we have not practically two Supreme courts. It is true, that the same chief Justice and associate ,Judges preside in each; but in every other respect they are in reality totally disconnected; and cannot be regarded as one consolidated Court with any more propriety than Courts in two different counties can be considered as constituting one Court, because the same Judge presides at both. . If it were really nothing but an adjourned Session of the Supreme Court, it would necessarily h11ve appellate jurisdiction of causes originat- ing in any and every part of the Republic, no matter where its sessions might be held. Yet this Bill denies the right of the Court to hear aw-J. determine causes unless they originated in the particular section of the country in which the court is sitting. As the Court is now organized and estab-lished, it has appellate jurisdiction co-extensive with the Repub• lie; and such I conceive to be its constitutional power; but the Bil] before me, abridges this right by throwing sectional limitations and re• strictions around its jurisdiction. These considerations strike my mind so forcibly, that I believe few, if any of the members of your honorable body would feel justified in sustaining a law which should go directly to the organization of two separate and independent Courts, and if they would not be willing to do this directly, because of its unconstitutionality, why pass a law which shall indirectly achieve the same end. It is the end that is unconstitu- tional, and we cannot in a moral point of view accomplish that either directly or indirectly which is expressly prohibited. If, however, it should be contended, because the Constitution says that One Supreme Court shall be established, that it. does not necessarily follow that two or more shall not be established, and because the court is directed to hold its Session cinnually, it is not intended to restrict it to one session only, but merely to compel it to hold at least one in every year, then I would say in answer, that by the same reasoning, we might arrive at the conclusion that there might be a plurality of Presedents; for the same constitution which declares that "the judicial powers of the Government shall be in one Supreme Court," also declares that "the Executive authority of this Government shall be vested in a chief :Magis- trate"; and any construction of the above provisions of the constitution which would allow of two or more Supreme Courts, would equally allow of two or more Executives, which would involve an absurdity not to be entertained for a moment. When this Bill was first presented to me, I entertained the same opinion I now do in reference to its constitutionality. Nevertheless, as I had ascertained that there was a diversity of opinion among legnl
I I I
Powered by FlippingBook