The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1863-09-11

Our neighbor appears to intimate that
tho sanction Of the Federal Supreme
Court is necessary TO establish the claims
Of laws duly enacted by Congress 70 the
obedience OF the people.
The Press replies 10 this
There 10 but single point on which
our cetemporary appears 10 misunderstood
our position Il is that wherein be
supposes as TO maintain that law OF
Congress must first have the sanction Of
the Federal Supreme Court before it 10
entitled 70 claim the obedience of the
people. We certainly did not so express
ourselves, and we now cay that such is
not our meaning. II is when the validity
of an act of Congress is actuaHy contested
before the Supreme Court, that we claim
for that tribunal the authority 10 de-
termine whether the act is or is rot
constitutional, and therefore law or not
law. The notion that an act of Congress
is not 10 be erec1ted until the court has
affirmed its validity, is so utterly silly
that we feel mortified at being forced 90
repudiate it.
Very good, but as our contemporary says
in tho same article =" he UMoN is right
in saying that our article was intended
as n standing definition of our position; :"
we will again quote what the Press ac-
tually said ia its definition:
The Press adopts the political creed
which declares that all laws of the
United States affirmed to be constitutional
by the Federal Supreme Court have a para
mount claim TO the obedience OF the in.
dividual citizens of every State
SO that whether the Press did or did not
mean to say that the affirmation of the
oonstitutionality OF law of Congress,
by the Federal Supreme Court, was es-
sontial to establish the authority of auch
law, il certainly said SO, though doubt
less inadvertently, in its definition
of its position. A definition OF a
position marks its q bounds, and
settles its limits; it is intended
TO include everything. The Press
definition specified such Federal laws
as had been affirmed to be consti-
tulional by the Federal Court" and did
not specify any others. So far is the
Federal Court from possessing any such
dictatorial authority, that it is easy TO
imagine contingencies where its decis-
ions might and ought to be disregarded.
On this point we repeat what we said in
our former article
Clearly there are cases where the de-
cisions of the Supreme Court may be dis
regarded. James Buchanan, and many
other politicians of bis school, declared
their belief that the Federal Government
had no p0l0er on authority unde, tie Consti.
tuition 70 suppress the rebellion BIZ force of
arms. Suppose that the Supreme Court
had given q decision, in accordance with
these views, in regard 60 all the mea.
sures adopted by Congress and the Pres
ident TO suppress the rebellion the laws
for raising soldiers; the appropriation
bills; the army and navy bills the APP
pointment of Generals; the creation Of
military departments; the appointment
of military Governors the confscation
act, and other measures W. ich made up
the military policy of the Adminietrn-
ton; would the Prsss affirm that such a
decision Of the Supreme Court would set
aside the act of Congress to suppress the
rebellion, or justify resistance to their
enforcement?
But on this point we are satisfied that
there win be no controversy between
ourselves and the press.
The Press continues:
We here ali IN the doctrine that he
right (to dispose of slavee) a0i22 bel9ng 10
the reconstructed State Of Tennessee as entire
~ as did before the rebellion
And little further it adds:
Our neighbOr asks "Will Tennessee
have right to remand liberated slaves to
bondage and nullify laics of the United
States| The italics are ours To this
we answer, No
This is not az clear or as satisfactory
as the PRESS first article on "Recon-
struction, on which we commented. TO
which we will now refer. In its former
article it said;
Among the reserved rigbta Of the
States, so far recognized and maintained
by both the Federal Legislative and
judicial authorities,is that which belongs
TO each State, 10 dispose Of the negro
slaves within its borders without The
control or interference of the Federal
Government. And without intending Ia
indicate, in advance OF tho practical
question, any opinion as 10 the dispo-
silion proper 10 be made of this popula.
ton, zoe assert that this right t0iH Jel0ng d
no reconstructed State Of Tennessee as en-.
drelV as a did before DO rebellion.
These are our views OF tho normal anC
peaceful relations between the State Of
Tennessee and the Federal Government
At the same time we hold that these re.
latiOns are suspended by bellgerent
condition, but as we have said, not de.
stroyed. During the time of this sus.
pension, the Federal Government has the
belkgHent right TO dispose OF the shares
40 Of horses, OF rebels, according TO itl
discretion, limited by the laws Of war
Now if we comprehend this extract
the Press holds:
That Tennessee holds "the reserved
right to dispose of the slaves within hei
borders, as she plotses.
That this right" is now interrupt.
ed and suspended" but mot DESTROYED
by the civil war.
That the "belligereut right Of The
Federal Governfnoot A.