in one of the
courts of the United States to recover his inheritance. The law by
which it is confiscated is shown. The constitution gave no power to
pass such a law. On the contrary, it expressly denied it to the
government. The title of the heir is rested on the constitution, the
title of the government on the law. The effect of one destroys the
effect of the other; the court must determine which is effectual.

There are many other cases, Mr. Chairman, of a similar nature to
which I might allude. There is the case of the privilege of
_habeas_ _corpus_, which cannot be suspended but in times of
rebellion or invasion. Suppose a law prohibiting the issue of the
writ at a moment of profound peace! If, in such case, the writ were
demanded of a court, could they say, it is true the legislature were
restrained from passing the law suspending the privilege of this
writ, at such a time as that which now exists, but their mighty
power has broken the bonds of the constitution, and fettered the
authority of the court? I am not, sir, disposed to vaunt, but
standing on this ground, I throw the gauntlet to any champion upon
the other side. I call upon them to maintain, that, in a collision
between a law and the constitution, the judges are bound to support
the law, and annul the constitution. Can the gentlemen relieve
themselves from this dilemma? Will they say, though a judge has no
power to pronounce a law void, he has a power to declare the
constitution invalid?

The doctrine for which I am contending, is not only clearly
inferable from the plain language of the constitution, but by law
has been expressly declared and established in practice since the
existence of the government.

The second section of the third article of the constitution
expressly extends the judicial power to all cases arising under the
constitution, laws, etc. The provision in the second clause of the
sixth article leaves nothing to doubt. "This constitution and the
laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof
etc., shall be the supreme law of the land." The constitution is
absolutely the supreme law. Not so the acts of the legislature!
Such only are the law of the land as are made in pursuance of the
constitution.

I beg the indulgence of the committee one moment, while I read the
following provision from the twenty-fifth section of the judicial
act of the year 1789: "A final judgment or decree in any suit in the