The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1866-10-04


fenpeet tive Constitutions, remained unaltered
aud uuimpaifed. except 40 far ~ they ssegs
granted t. the United States ,cither expressly
or by necessary implication" Martin w.
Hunter II IL incumbent ON those who claim
that they were granted, 10 show how aud
whore IL w'e done.
Al 20 the right II citizenship, attempted
BY this act Ia H. granted, 10 be exercised in
the States, that has especially been eOnsid.
cred ~ belonging 10 tho States respectively,
the only difference IN opinion among iurisis
being, whether State had the right Ia CON
fer citizenship on % person Of African de
scent The Constitution" says Justice
Curtis " has left tO the States the determin.
alton, what persons, born within their re-
speCtive limits, shall acquire, by birth, citi.
zonship Of the United States" bred Scott
W. Sanford, 10 How, 5a2 Again lac says
TO what citizens the elective franchise
shall be cOniided, IL a question 10 be detcrmiaed
By each State, in accordance Wih H. Own riers
Of The necessities or crpodieHoies Of hs condition
What oirH righfs shaH b. enjoyed By its citizens,
and whefheT all shall enjoy he same, or hO,r iheg
may be- gained or lost, arc 10 be- determined IN NE
sumo ray" h., 5s3. Again Among the
powers nnquestionably possessed by the sey.
eral States, was that Of determining what
persons should, aud what persons should not.
be citizens" ID, $40 aud he says that power
was retained by the States
What warrant then, has this act Of Con
gress. ~ 10 the matters involved IN this ap
plieation. IN the Constitution confess
have been able to find none
II has sometimes been claimed under Act
4. Sec 2 of the Constitution which provides
that the citizens Of each State shall be on.
titled 10 all privileges aud immnnities Of
citizens Of the several States" Bat that
clearly has no application 10 the question.
Becansc, l. II does not determine who shall
be 'citizons of each State;" and they must
be such, IN order 10 be entitled to the priv.
legcs aud immnnitios guaranteed That is
question 10 be determined by the States
respectively, IA we have seen. IL is absurd
TO say, that In virtue Of this power, Con
gress has authority to make them eitizrus,
ia order that they may be entitled to the
rights Guaranteed in this provision TO citi-
zens of each State. 2 This act makes them
"citscRs of the Unitod States;" which il not
within the terms of the provision of the
Constitution. They are described" says
Justice Curtis, "as 'Citigehs Of each State -
II Is 10 them these national rights are secur-
ed. The qualification for them " not 10 b. look
cd for IN any prorisiOH Of The Constitution or
Idies Of The United Sidtes. They are 10 he
citizens of the several States" and as such
the privileges and immunlties of general
citizenship, derived from, and guaranteed by
the Constitution, ARE TO be enjoyed by them .
bred Scott w. Sanford. jb $50 s. The pro.
vision has reference to citizens removing
from one State 10 another. IF they re-
move" says Chancellor Kent, from one
State TO another, they are entitled 10 the
privileges that persons of the same descrip-
ton are entitled to in the State TO which
the removal is made, and to none other
The privileges thus conferred are local and
necessarily territorial in their nature" 2
Kent's Comm n; aud they mnst Consc-
quently proceed from State authority.
The act finds no support In the power,
given 10 Congress, to establish uniform
rulo of nnturalizaton for that has refer
cnce to persons of foreign birth only. Nor
can It be referred TO the several guarantees
Of individual rights 10 the citizen specified
IN the 4th, 9th, 9th, 9TH aud 9Th amendments
TO the Constitution. For these provisions
apply to Judicial proceedings under the
Federal Government, and not to those of the
States, Barron w Mayor, &c, of I}alti-
more, :, Pet5rs, Wthers VS. Buckley 20
How
Under solemn sense of Official duty, |
am, therefore, constrained to hold, that the
act of Congress In question, is IN cOutraven
ton of the Constitution of the United
States, az to the matter now presented for
my action, and is imperative aud void.
tion of much importance and delCacy is
presented and that il whether rs a Judge
of State Court, il is my duty or within my
power, to decide questions of this character
| have maturely considered this question,
aud am satisfied that il is my duty 10 decide
whether an act of Congress il constitutional
or not, whenever il becomes necessary in
case properly presented for my official ac-
ton, as this is
Judge of State Court il required, by
the Constitution Of tho United States, to
take an oath tO support the Constitution
and that manitcstly makes it his duty to
decide questions in relation to the cOnstitu-
tionality of acts of Congress when properly
presented, This is made manifest by the
- Sec of the Judiciary act of 1879, which
provides that final Judgment or decree, in
any suit in the highest Court of law or
equity of state, may bo brought up on |
error TO the Supreme Court of the United |
States, where the validity of q treaty or an |
act of Congress, was drd,rR IN question in tie |
State Court and the decision Wds against its |
rdlidiy This act appears TO be conclusive
of the question, And the principle is FULLY |
and acted on 10y the Supreme
Court of the L. s., in Martin VS. Hunter a
lessee.
Mr. Hamilton clearly shows the reason of |
this. lie says "Thc plan reported by the |
Convention (that Is the Constitution will |
enable the government 20 employ the Ordi- |
nary magistracN of each State, in the exc
cution of its laws. The laws of the
Confcderacy, rs To The enumerated aud legit.
mate objects Of IN Jurisdiction, will become the
law of the land; to the observance
of which, all officers executive legislative
and judicial in each State, will be bound by
the sauctity of an oath. Thus, the legisla.
lures, Courts aud magistrates of the respect.
i've members (StateS) wiU h. incorporated into
Ne opcldiioRs ~ The national goroWmcHt, a. far
ls ~ Just and constitutional authority ori,iids.
and viii bc rendered auxiliary to the en-
orcemcnt of its laws" Fcdoralist No. q.
also 70. -
This general doctrine is fully confirmed
iy the luminous reasoning of Chief Justice
Marshall in Marhury ". Madison. J. Cmuch
S5 lie says: The powers of tina Legisla-
ure (Congrcss) are defined aud limited.
To what purpose are
bowers limited, and 10 what purpose is that
Imitation committed to writing il these
mutations may, az any time, hc passed hy
hose intended to Ice restrained The dis
inction hctween Government with limit
ii or unlimited powers is abolished IL those
limits do not contnc the persons ON whom
hey are imposed, aud Il acts prohibited and
lcts allowed. are Of equal obligation. IL is
proposition too plain to be contested. that
he Constitution contrpls any legislative
Vt repugnant 60 IL or, the Legislature may
liter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
II is cmphatically the |
rovince aud duty of the Judicial depart
a