the court's judgment the two were in conflict, it would, to be sure, be an elevated and important office, one dealing with great matters, involving large public considerations, but yet a function far simpler than it really is. Having ascertained all this, yet there remains a question — the really momentous question — whether, after all, the court can disregard the Act. It cannot do this as a mere matter of course, — merely because it is concluded that upon a just and trtue construction the law is unconstitutional. That is precisely the significance of the rule of administration that the courts lay down. It can only disregard the Act when those who have the right to make laws have not merely made a mistake, but have made a very clear one, — so clear that it is not open to rational question. That is the standard of duty to which the courts bring- legislative Acts; that is the test which they apply, — not merely their own judgment as to constitutionality, but their conclusion as to what judgmient is permissible to another department which the constitution has charged with the duty of making it. This rule recognizes that, having regard to the great, complex, ever-unfolding exigencies of government, much which will seem unconstitutional to one man, or body of men, may reasonably not seem so to another; that the constitution often admits of different interpretations; that there is often a range of choice and judgment; that in such cases the constitution does not impose upon the legislature any one specific opinion, but leaves open this range of choice; and that whatever choice is rational is constitutional. This is the principle which the rule that I have been illustrating affirms and supports. The meaning and effect of it are shortly and very strikingly intimated by a remark of Judge Cooley, [1] to the effect that one who is a member of a legislature may vote against a measure as being, in his judgment, unconstitutional; and, being subsequently placed on the bench, when this measure, having been passed by the legislature in spite of his opposition, comes before him judicially, may there find it his duty, although he has in no degree changed his opinion, to declare it constitutional.
Will any one say, You are over-emphasizing this matter, and making too much turn upon the form of a phrase? No, I think not. I am aware of the danger of doing that. But whatever may be said of particular instances of unguarded or indecisive judicial language, it does not appear to me possible to explain the early,
- ↑ Const. Lim., 6th ed., 68; cited with approval by Bryce, Am. Comr., 1st ed., i. 431.
