Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1861-02-28

] OF Indiana, in 1924 and OF Vermont and New
Jersey in 1897, and Of Connectieut IN 1888,
also pre7iaed the trial by jury L sisher psriy
demsnded Z, in the case 0f tht claim Of fugi-
/ tivesfrom labor. Ohio and NeW York have made
neutrality-suspicious. In 1877, Pennsylvania al
lowed the habeas corpus to be issued In the case
/ Of fugitive slaves after the Supreme Court Of
| the United States had declared that the Fede-
raj Government possessed exclusive jurisdie-
ton over the subject. It IS not lawful to grant
! the hubcas c0rpus under i0ese eHenmstahces-
'sAil Persons rsstrsinsd OF heif liberty under
any pretense whatsoever, are entitled 10 pros
ecute this writ, unless they be persons de-
tained, (I.1-Bv process from any eourt or
/ iaiEs ol lbe United States, having exclusive
jurisdiction in tbe ease,p Kent 634. "No
/ inquiry is 10 Be made into the legality Of any
/ process, Judgment or decree, or the lnsdee or
4 pr0priety Of the commitment IN The case Of per
sens detained under process OF the United
States, where the court or officer has exclusive
jurisdiction.1 Il Kent, 636
1t is unnecessary for me to say that these
acts are unconstitutional; the supreme Court
Of the United States has pronounced them so.
/ But YOU say those acts were passed before
(others have been passed since) the Supreme
Court declared its judgment. Grant il. They
1 are. however. still upon the statute books Of
those States; and as proOf that they do not
Z consider them unconstitutional and Vol1s Wit
/ ness the failure Of the attempt 10 repeal them.
| I shan not stop to mention the less of the
southern States arising from this unfriendiy
and unconstitutional disposition Of the iree
states. In 1850, I0Il slaves escaped from the
/ South. Since 1850 Il has been said that 800
have escaped every year. Il is well known
( tnat A fugitive slave is one Of the "iTreclaima-
bic things.D Now, here are States violating
the Constitution according to The construction
of the Supreme Court. iask you, what shaii
be done? You say the President must enforce
I the law / say the President does not enforce
Z the law. You say impeach the President. /
saw the United States Hsuse Of Representa-
siTss has the sole power Of impeachment, and
the House does not impeach. You say reno
vate the House, elect members who viii i'm
peach. say that one sta e cannot efieetual-
/ iv control the House Of Representatives, that
( We have exh hansted cur constitutional remedies,
I that either the corruption or the weakness OF
I the Government has been demonstrated, that
its inability to perform its psrtof the contract
( has been established, that thereby its existence
I has been DESTROYED, and as matter OF course
/ the different States have the uRdoubted right 20
resume those powers which they originally
1 granted.
In the second place, think / have shown,
/ that a State has the righ. to secede, whenever
4 the consideration for the contract made by the
/ States fails. You ask, who is to decide upon
"
/ seems, that the Supreme Court Of the United
4 States should. Let US see, if this be 50. The
I iurisd elton Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States, extends to "al cases in law
and equity, arising under the Constitution" " Of
the United States. pass by the meant e Of
the phrase, " law and equity" t has been
asserted, (and ss much was intimated in a
dictum Of the court, in the case Of Drsd Scott
vs.. Sanf0rd), that tbeiSupreme Court Of the
United States, had no power to decide political
questions. Whether the Union is more com
piete or whether Justice has been obtained, or
domestic tranquility insured, are not questions
Of law, but questions Of policy. According
to this view Of the subject the Supreme Court
could not decide. And again, it IS almost i'm
possible TO bring this matter before court.
But suppose the court has Jurisdiction Of it
what will be its judgment? That the Union
be made more perfect How win the marshal
execute the Judgment? We have forgotten
that II the court decide that the consideration
has failed, it pronounces its own sentence Of
death, and Of course has no power to execute
its Judgment. purpose to examine this sub
iect more seriously, and more closely. In the
outset, I shall take occasion to say, that this
action would be brought BY the State, no
against the General Government, but against
the other States.
The oTieins jurisdiction Of the Supreme
Court Of TIE United States extends 10 al
cases affecting ambassadors, other public min
isters and consuls, and those IN which
q States ball be a party" Constitution
Of the United States, article 3, sec
tion 2, (2)l. As S ate is a par
tv in this case, the Supreme Court will have
original jurisdiction over t.. But there are
two kinds Of original jurisdiction; exclusive
original jurisdiction, and concurrent original
Jurisdiction. Let US now determine, whether The
jurisdiction is exclusive or concurrent In the
case Of the United States vs.. Ravara 2 Dallas
297l, it was decided that Congress could vest
a concurrent jurisdiction in other courts Of
those very cases, Ov which the Supreme
Court OF the United States had original juris
dictiOn. Tie case Of marburY vs. Madison ]
Craneh 1871 goes far toward establishing ex-
elusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court yet
this question was still left in doubt by the
court, in.the case Of the United States vs..
Ortega, and decision upon il was pErpOsely
waived. II is then a doubtful question. The
jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court is never pre-
sumed-the presumption is always against 4.
Now, as exclusive jurisdiction Is a sort
higher than concurrent, the presumption is
against the exclusive, and In favor Of the con
current jurisdiction. This position is sup
ported by Bingham vs. Cabot, [3 Dsllos 5S2,
Jackson vs.. Ashton, Is Peters rs, Capron ".
Van Noorden, r Cranch 1876, and Montatet
vs.. Murray, a CTanch 46. In the case Of
The United States vs. Rayara, it was de-
cidsd that Congress could vest a concurrent
jurisdictions in other courts. Is the act OF
Congress necessary to vest a concurrent iqris-
diction ?' The State government clearly re-
tain all those rights Of sovereignty which they
had before the adoption of the Constitution Of
the United States, and which were not, by that
Constitution, clearly delegated TO the Union.
The alienation Of State power or Sovereignty
would only exist in three cases where the
Consti ution, in express terms, granted an eX-
elusive authority % the Union; where it granted
In one Instance an authority to the UnioB, and
in another, prohibited the States frcm exercis-
ing the like authority and where it grained
an authority to the Union, to which similar
authority in the States would be absolutely
and totally contradictory, and repugnant
See the FedsrGlisi. In Houston vs.. Moore,
Wheaton /, Judge Story recognized this de-
scripdon Of the nature Of the powers, and
furthermore said: " An example Of the first
class is to be found in the exclusive legislation
delegated 70 Congress over places purchased
for forts, arsenais5 etc; and Of the second
class, in prohibition Of State to coin money
OF emit bills Of credit; and Of the third class,
n the power to establish a uniform rule Of
naturalization, and Ia the delegation of sdmi-
ralty az maritime jurisdiction. In all other
cases =. State retains concurrent authority
with Congress" Il is clear that this iuris-
dicsion has not been vested exclusively 10 the
Supreme Court, BY express terms. Il is also
manifest that an exercise OF it has not been pro-
hibited 10 the States, and It is equally certain
that the exercise Of it by State court would,
not be absolutely and totally eontrsdicted and
repugnant," to the exercise Of it by the
Supreme Court Of the United States for
ehs effect Of the decision Of the ques-
don by a State court would be precisely
the sane as Il It bad been decided b. the SUI
preme Court. HUnless the State courts were
expressly excluded BY the acts Of Congress,
they would, ef course, take concurrent cogni-
rance Of the causes to,Whlch those acts might
give birth, SUBJECT to the exceptions which have
been stated" TSee the Federalisf. I suppose
have shown that the State courts have con-
current power viii tie Supreme Cogrt Of the
q. s. to decide this question. The Supreme
Court may have the power Of TeFiswing The de-
decision OF the state court but the decision
of the State court is binding until an
appeal is taken. The State court is only the
sgeni Of the people, organized foF their eonye-
nience. It is no separate and independent
power ike the Supreme Court Of the United
States. No express grant Of power has made
it. The people can abolish Il at any tims, and
even while it exists they can do those ACTS,
which It Was Instituted 10 do, as the principal
can do those things which be employed the
agent to perform. Art I, sec. I, Of the con-
I hLiLdLs0l OF Afunehhet sdDs- - Ala power - IN
herFeut IN the people, and all free governments
are founded on their authority, and Instituted
for their peace, safety and happiness, for the
advancement Of those ends they have al al
timess an fnaIiensble and indcfeasibie right to
altar, reform OF abolish the government in such
manner as they may think BFopor.0
Therefore, people Of Tennessee, if you zee
ft, you can act instead Of FouT agent, the Su-
preme CCurt, and decide this question for your
selves If aay STATS desire 20 appeal from
your decision, let her do II. As the power 70
decide is nov inyou, I ask IL The considera-
ton for The contract between your State and
others has not failsd2 + part Of that consid-
GRAFTON is a more perfect Union. Alasl where
ls the Union? what is the Union? That fra
ternai iova which once existed between the
sections Of this country has been changed 10
! bitter, burning hate. What was once fertile
/ foweTy plain, is now a wild and wifheriRg
vacfe. There is no spot Of verdure 10 be seen;
pcl even "a roas Of the wilderness is lsft on
I its stalk &c tell where the gafdens had heen."
/ Those bonds Of union have bees melted; those
I ties Of love have been rudely severed. And
that great temple, which your forcfsthers built,
! and cementsd With their blood, whoss grand
proportions rose "msjesticaily fairip whose
/ turrets pierced the Clouds and on whose sum
nit the pillar Of God's sternal sunshine rested;
that temple is crumbiing into ruins:
/ .spssirucsion hsngs o'er yon devoted wall,
ana nosiiue Tiion wAits the Impending fan"
Fanatieism has already driven away seven