Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-07-17
rne LouisriIIe AID Nashvi1Ie Ral.rond.

Some time since an agreed case was submitted
TO the Circuit Court of Jefferson county, Ky, for
the purpose of testing the legality of LINCOLN s
blockade of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad.
The case was argued before Judges MUIR and Lo-
GAN. On the llth inst, Judge MrIR delivered an
opinion declaring that "the Louisville and Nashville
Railroad Company was bound to obey the order
emanating from the Treasury Department" of the
LINCOLN Government, land therefore, rightfully re-
fused to transport the merchandise rendered -
Judge LOGAN dissented from this opinion In pub
fishing the opinion Of Judge LOGAN, the Louisville
Courier says:
In introducing letter from Judge Logan against
the right Of secession the journal said his name of
itself sufficient 10 secure universal attention to
the clear. strong and altogether resistless argu-
ment by which he fortified his position; and, under
the circumstances, we now think his name his DO
itiCal views, and his position combine to carry the
Irresistible argument he makes against the right of
the Exc utive Department of the Government to in
teTiere with the trade Of the States and on and
control the property of individuals or corporations
home to the hearts and cOnscences of the people Of
Kentucky.
The nature Of the case is clearly stated in the
opinion. 1t involves the legality Of the Treasury
orders under which trade of Louisville has been
annihilated for the time being. Our people and the
people Of the whole country are interested in its
deCIsi0n: for while the immediate effect Of the in
reference with the trade of the city is more plainly
seen and felt here the interests of the people Of
every part of the State involved more or less
remotely. and every right of American citizenship
sympathZas with the attack on the right Of the
people of Louisville 20 sell their goods, wares, and
merchandise to those who alone buy, or ever have
bought, from them.
The agreed case was made. aud trial was had be-
fore Judges Muir and Logan. Both OF these gentle
men, il IS well known, adhere to school Of poll
tics based on construction Of the Federal Consi-
tuition adverse to the State rights doctrine generally
maintaHg at the South, and more favorable to tn G
c0nsohdatiOHists OF the free States: and knowing
their views. honestly entertained. of the Constitu
ton and the system Of government based on it. few
would have been surprised at a joint opinion in
favor Of the defendants.
But whatever Judge Logan's views of the powers
and rights Of the Federal Government may be, he
very properly discrimnates between the powers
delegated to that government and those conferred
upon q simple department of 1t. and while he takes
occasion to Teiterate opinions formerly expressed
in regard the right of secession and TO express
himself incidentally in favor Of a liberal cOnstruc-
ton Of the Constitution, he properly characterizes
the acts of the Executive Is usurpatiOrS, without
warrant in the Constitution the statutes, and
warns his country &gsinst encrOachments which
tend to the establishment Of despotism and the
destruction OF their liberties.
The argument of Judge Logan against the legal
ity Of the acts OF the President Is ulanswerable,
conclusive, crushing, overwhelming; it cannot be
reiutei; it is too strong to be attacked ard his
position, his character his political associations his
views Of the Constitution, only serve to commend
it the more strongly to the consideration OF the
public.