914 Sheet – American State Trials 1918 Volume X Leo Frank Document

Search for:

Reading Time: 3 minutes [358 words]

Here is the translated text as follows:

In the case of the United States, the statute was challenged but ultimately deemed constitutional by the courts, and their decision was accepted.

I came across a report of a case, Kamper v. Hawkins, decided in 1793 in the general court of this commonwealth. The case concerned the constitutionality of a law that granted district courts the power to issue injunctions in certain situations. The judges of the general court, by a four-to-one decision, determined that the law was unconstitutional and void.

Yesterday, I reviewed the record of another case from the Court of Appeals of this commonwealth, dated 1788. In this instance, the general assembly had passed "An act to establish district courts." The judges, with ten present, adjudged that the Constitution and the said act were in conflict and could not coexist. They concluded that the court should not take any official action in executing an act that appeared contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. Following this decision, the then-governor, Mr. Edmund Randolph, promptly called the general assembly by proclamation. I have been informed that they amended the law in accordance with the court's opinion.

From these two decisions in the highest courts of justice in this state, I can reasonably conclude that, at that time, it was believed that the courts of justice were the appropriate bodies to determine the constitutionality of the laws of this commonwealth. It is now argued that the constitutionality of the laws of Congress should be submitted to the decision of a petit jury. May I ask, what has prompted this change of opinion? I must declare that this doctrine is entirely novel to me, and I had never encountered it before arriving in this city. It seems not only new but also very absurd and dangerous, directly opposing and breaching the Constitution. I urge those who uphold this doctrine and have sworn to support the Constitution to conscientiously reconsider their opinions with a calm and deliberate mindset, open to discovering the truth and willing to change their stance if they find themselves in error.

It must be evident that decisions in the district or circuit courts...