The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-11-22

the Island Of Castine Her territory, then,
lwae not for the time part IL the UNITED
States but over IL, the Constitutional pow.
ens Of the United States GOyernmdnt had
been huspeuded by force ~ arms, anh u was
therefore enemy territory W legal cOAIem-
plation when neither the person nor pfaI'-
4 erty of loyal citizen Of the United StsteA
resldiHg hefc was entitled 20 Che protection
Of Der laws, or the cognizance Of her courts
, ''bccansc ID was claimed aud held ih posseestoH
by an organized hostile and belhgerent
. power" The United States Government,
ior the time, had neither citizens. nor courts,
nof laws. nor publicpolicy, mo- COhstitntion-
J al authority. a. a matter o. fact, in Aissis-
, slppi but her people were enetnins, holding
possession Of her territory IN hostility TO the
+ Goyernmont Of the United States, ~ decided
by The Supreme Court IN the casss already
referred 10.
Misslssippi wac thus originally a state De
jhr ~ attempting 70 secede, she acted az
a sovereign Stats" claiming 10 be sovereign
without limitation, and demanding the M
1aaiQtd allegiance of her citizens, and for
ycarB after the passage Of the act Ia ques-
Y ton, sho maintained by force of arms the
claims she asserted.
IL the case Of Swan ~ Buck, not yet re-
ported, Ia speaking Of the obligation of the
State ~ pay the salaries Of its civil officers,
for services during the war this court has
said. the State 81 Mississippi il 20 Gay the
same state that occupied the limits before
the 9th day Of January, 1861, aud since that
date. It's constitution aud It's laws are tine
same, except so far rs they have been altered
4 from time 20 time by its own act rights of
! property arc to be governed, contracts are to
be construed, and crimes are to be tried aud
| punishcd by the same laws that existed be-
fore The date Of the act Of secession, or that
have been enacted since. IL is not new
State, or new government, but the same
State and the same government.
The state Is not relieved Of It's debts by the
revolution through which IL has passed and
4 the salaries due to its officers for the period
during the while they were in the discharge
Of their functions, stand upon no less favor
able footing than other debts before the war
commenced or contracted since"
['rhe opinion here quotes from 7 Peters, X.
p. 70, 81 ! Peters, II, p 5i2; u Wheaton,
1885, 10 Peters, p. 72O, 729 73O and Peters
73I &c, &c. Also "a Collisions r. p 500
aud largely from the case of L. s. rs. Rice
4 Wheaton.
Admitting then that the act of secession
was q nullty, the State Of Mississippi neith-
cr in fact nor in legal contemplation could
be annhilated by void ordinance. The at
tempt 10 change her relations towards the
Y > Government, only involved her inter
nal relations Within her limits there re-
manned II regularly organized government de
jarc, as well AZ de facto, which was never dis.
puiod Tho u. $ Government never claim.
ed the right TO 'regulato or control her inter-
nal and domestic affairs. not in violation of
the Constitution Of the United States. And
G.. j. Marshall in the case of the Trustees Of
Dartmouth college ~, Woodward, 4ti
Wheat, 5ls In reply toFthe argument chat +
the prof. ibition in the Constitution. 80 pass
any Law impaiTing the obligation of con
tracts" taken in its broadcast sense, would
comprehend the political relations between
the Government and its citizens would eX-
tend to officers within State for Stat. pur'
poses;
would be an Improbable and voxatious in
difference with the internal concerns -
STATE would unnecessarily andtuCS.., ,,,,.s1sr
euibarrass its legislation, w5nld render inn.
mnt - 49, y IN Institutions which are
esg, SFsned Tor purposes of internal govern
sent, and which to subservc those purposes
ought 70 vary with varying circumstances
says tho general correctncss OF the obser- I
yations cannot be controverted. That the |
trainers of the Constitution did not intend /
TO restrain the States in She regulation of
theirciyil institutions adopted for internal |
government and that The Instrument they hare
gircR ms, Is not to be so construed may be adj |
mitted"
1t was never claimed or insisted that the |
Government of Mississippi was usurpod or
not rightfnl No other power ever assumed |
the right TO administer the powers of gov
omment within her limits. or disputed her |
right 10 exercise those powers, as she had |
previously done in subordination only TO
the Constitution of the United States, as the |
supreme law of the land. Her existence as /
State was never the subject of contro-
vcrsy. But her relation TO the other States
of the Union, her right TO dissolve that re-
lation and form new compact with other
States was the disputed question
IT, then, her ordinance of secession was
void this could no more affect her govern
ment or her sovereignty, as a State in the
Union, than il il had never existed. If a .
nullity, IL surely in law could OF amount to
political suicide. IL she had ordained her
own dissolution, instead of a dissolution of
her external relations to the Government of
the United States, there would have been
more plausibility in the idea that the Gov
eminent had been annihilated But in the
continued existence of all the powers of
government over her own citizens, and in
her own limits-her legislative, executive
aud judicial departments, with all other
civil officers in the daily discharge of their
duties and functions,-how or when did she
lose her existence rs n State ! Or why
should her legislative acts, not in contra
vention of the Constitution of the United
States, or of her own Constitution, be in-
validl The Government of the United
States not only never claimed the right
TO deprive her of these powers but
throughout the struggle, professed to labor
for the preservation and protection of her
people. a. State. in the old Union, and
thereby prevent the disruption Of that
Union.
If Mississippi was not government right
.fally aud In fact, who else sought or claimed,
or possessed the powers of government.
which were in tact regularly administered
over her people Can il be that without
even a claimant to dispute her right, her
legislative acts, not forbidden by any or
ganic law, are void for want of government
tai power TO pass them; aud this because of
a void ordinance passed by the people in
Convention Because the Government of
the United States detained Mississippi in
the Union by coercion of arms, To prevent its
own dissolution, il does not follow that Mis-
siSSippi thereby became extinct rs q State
and the Union dissolved Nor can il be
true that the old Union was preserved, and
yet that eleven States have been destroyed
in the effort
In legal effect, the character of Mississippi
rs State in the Union, was therefore es {
tahlished, aud not destroyed by the events |
Of the war, aud the act in question remains !
unaffected by its political suits
Aud this would be the rcSnlt even il Mis- ;