Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-05-19
ruEIOsT CAUSE.

AIN AAAAAG A1N
n States see ft 70 reduce the Others to
the condition of provinces establishihg
over them q despOtism Oftbe worst
the military, under which they '
neither laws or rights-snd even II this
l. done IN a time Of profound peace,
and without any right acquired by con-
Quest, there is no Judicial remedy for the
the Ststes so annihilated and nothing
remains but the right of secession or rev
oIution. The right Of revolution may
exist in consequence Of the violation OF
g,o oo,,,sct - SH0 S1SteSi " u
an abuse Of power on the part OF the
majority of the States, If the Constitu-
ton IS not a compact, but 8 government
proper, established by ali the people Of all
the States together. In the former case
II Is the right Of secession, as that has
heretofore been asserted by the South,
because the southern view and construc-
ton Of the Constitution has always been
that It was q comFact between the States,
which q State had a clear right to re-
scind II it was grossly violated by the
others TO her wrong and injury. Secs
sion, therefore, has always meant a
~pesceable withdrawal by a State from q
Union Of the States, ike the withdrawal
Of one partner from a firm, in which
there IS nothing revolutionary.
Is not, what is called the right Of
revolution, jNst as much the right Of
secession, in the other case 1t is not
possible 10 deny that, even If the Consti-
tuition is not q compact between the
States, but q Government proper-nOt
an agreement and contract, but an en-
actment by the whole peOple,---the
several States were free, sovereign and
independent, in the fullest sense Of those
words.-like different nations until the
Constitution took effect a. 2 supreme law
over all, and that there had tOEbe an
agreement by the States, IS States, per
ceding the Constitution, that it should be
the law over all.lThe whole people ofRll
had no power or right 10 make such a
law. until the States, each for itself, in
vested them with that power and right.
They pretended 70 have any such
power. II was never admitted by Mas
sachusetts that the people Of the other
twelve States had either right or power
TO impose such a government on her, ex-
cept by her consent; and il never was
pretended by the twelve States repre-
scented in the Convention OF 1857 that
their people had any right TO compel
Rhode Island to enter into the Union or
submit to the Constitution.
There was q compact, then, between
the States, in any event, either con-
tanned in or preceding the Constitution.
II the latter, then q violation Of the Su-
preme Law enacted as thee onstitutiOn,
bv q part Of the States or the majority Of
the people Of all, TO the injury Of the rest
of the States, warranted these in declar-
ing that they were no longer bound by
the consent which they had given to the
enactment Of this law, and that the law
itself was no longer obligatory on them,
hut had ceased to be, as to them, any Law
at all, and they were RENTED to all their
equal rights, prerogstives, Sovereignty
and independence, and the Union dis
solved. To declare themselves so, was,
therefore, not q revolutionary act, but
the resumption by a State Of her original
rights, for a violation Of the compact,
preceding the Constitution, by which
she agreed 10 cede these rights 20 the
Nation created out Of all the States. The
assertion Of this right might be resisted
By arms; but that made it none the less
8 right, nor did it make Il q revolution
airy right.
The decision Of the Supreme Court
establishes, therefore, beyond any posi-
billty Of dispute, that there neve was
any other remedy for a State u~njustly
stripped of her rights, and in fact made
10 be no longer a State, but 8 subject
Province, than the right to secede from
the Union. It does not need argument
70 demonstrate that, there being 3 COM
pact between the States, contained in the
Constitution, or by virtue Of which the
Constitution was enacted, there must be
some remedy FOR a gross and utter viola
ton OF this compact.
The Supreme Court did not give the
reasons for its decision, following a pre-
cedent not very ~creditable TO 1t, and so
settling down into a practice Of very
questionable propriety. Il is 8 conse-
duence Of the vicious practice of substi-
tuting forensic arguments for judicial
opinions. In France the Court Of Cas-
sation GlUdys gives its reasons for its
decision, and it always can dol /, because
il states each reason in a single sentence.
II the supreme Court had done so in the
Injunction cases, we should know on
what ground it had decided and we do
not care to know by what process OF ar
gumentation each Judge convinced him
self that his particular opinion was cor
rect. OF dissenting opinions we have
long been sick and weary.
or course, the first question in the
cases was whether Georgia and Missls-
gippi are really States Of the United
States, or s~ubjugsted Provinces. Before
the Court could reach the question
whether 3 State Of the Union could have
the relief sought, it clearly had first TO
ascertain whether there O such a State
IN existence. II not, these was no case,
and DO complainant asking any relief.
CIVIL death il death in law but a State
eonoaered and become a Province is real
hy dead. The Court, therefore did have
jurisdiction 10 decide whether there Was
such a living State as Georgia and
should have decided hat first of
all. II there was no such State, a deci-
sion that the State could not have the
reTef sought, was one which the Court
hsd no right OF power 10 give. 1t could
only say There is no such State. Take
the bill from the files. There is no
suit here for anything"
But we do not suppose that the Court
has put its decision on this ground; be-
cause It has IN many other cases, st this
term. assumed that the Southern States
are still States, by exercising jurisdie-
ton in cases coming up from those
States, and by recognizing the legality Of
the Circuit and District Courts of the
limited states, within those States.
There can be no such Courts In q Terri
tory or Province.
The decision must therefore have pro-
eeeded upon the ground that the whole
matter is Of q political character, invoiv-
ing questions az 10 the relations between
h states and the General Government
NJ which the Court can have no cogni-
vance. III could, it Eight equally be
.,slled on to decide that the Congress o.
the United States is not the lawful Legis-
ls.urs OF the Union, because represents
son is refused TO ten States.
N follows a. a eorollary, that the re-
,oe5,es Of the States, for wrongs done
.,,sm bv Congress, are also political, and
n they oonnot obtain redress in the
they must do so by Withdrawing !
w Il equally follows that the peO- [,
1 state 80 Withdrawing, are not
p"u,y Of treason or rebellion ia State !
ssosde. It Is because to dose would