.MTA2NA.NzIzMzU

late decision of the Supreme Court in the missionary case is erroneous, and, therefore, that id does not come within the constitutional duty of the President "to take care that the law is faithfully executed," he has already said that this is an inquiry upon which the President, from the strictly Executive character of his power, has no constitutional right to enter; the Constitution having never intended to erect him into an appellate judicial tribunal to revise & reverse the decisions of the Supreme Court. But waving this objection, and regarding the paper in the light of an appeal to the people of the United States from the decision of the Supreme Court, let us see whether this Executive battery has shaken, in the slightest degree, any part of the Court's opinion. Our first remark upon it, is, that considered as an answer to the argument of the Court, the argument of the Court, and the case in which it was pronounced, ought to have been candidly exhibited by the writer, in order that the reader might have had before him, at the same time, the story strikeout: on of both sides of the question. The case, however, is not stated. Nor are the connected propositions which led the Court to their conclusion exhibited, but the writer has contented himself with quoting a few detached sentences from the Court's opinion and directing the whole power of his twelve columns upon them. This we consider as unfair towards the Court, and unfair towards the country, to whom this appeal is thus carried, if the design be to make the country to judge with full intelligence on the subject. The writer may allege that the opinion of the Court had been already published. Had it been published in the Globe? But even if it had, , we should have supposed that a writer conscious of the depth of his cause, would not have been satisfied with a post publication, which his readers might or might not have seen, but would have drawn up the arguments, side by side, --would have noted that of the Supreme Court in all its strength, and would have met it, fully and fairly, by his victorious reply. This course, however, he has not pursued; and if his reader is to judge of the Court's opinion by that meagre exhibition, which this writer has thought proper to make of it, he might well conclude that it was the poorest and most driveling nonsense that ever fell from any bench, instead of being, as all enlightened and impartial men have