The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-03-28
ment, as IL was styled, In conttadis


i against an adherent of the latter. The
existence of the authority of the gov
eminent under which the trespass was
alleged toh have been committed, was
denied land the court decided that the
| question as to which was the legal
government was entirely POLITICAL
question over which it had no juris-
diction-and that it was bound by the
constitution to be guided by the deeis-
| ion of Congress.
| Chief Justice fancy, delivering the opin-
ion of the Court, says:
THE Constitution of the United States, as
far as it has provided for an emergency of
this kind, and authorized the general gov
eminent to interfere in the domestic con-
Germs of State, has treated the subject as po-
Hticat IN its nature, and placed Ate potcey in the
hands Of that department. Qegislative)
The fourth section of the fourth article of
the Constitution of thefUnited States pro-
vides that the United States shall guarantee
to every State in the Union a republican
form OF government and shall protect each
Of them against invasion; and on the appli-
cation of the legislatureor of the executive
(when the legislature cannot be convened)
against domestic violence
"Under this article of the Constitution it
rests acith congress to decide nhat govern-
naeTt is the established one IN a State. For
as the United States guarantee each State
republican government, Congress mast neces-
sdrtty decide achat government Is established
| an the State before &c can determine achether
| 1t is republican or not. A7ad achen the Sena-
tors and Representatives Of a State are atl-
fnitted isto the councils of Union, the
authority Of the government under aotich
| they are appointed, as well as its republican
character, is recognized by the proper consti-
| tatiORdl authority. And its decision is bind
ing on every other department Of the gorern-
| ment, and could not be questioned in G. judicial
| tribunal. 1t is true that the contest in this
| case did not last long enough to bring the
matter to this issue; and as no Senators or
| Representatives were elected under the author
| ity of the government of which Mr.. Dorr was
| the head, Congress was not called upon to
| decide the controversy. Yet the right to decide
is placed there, and not in the courts"
This decision bears directly upon
the case now presented. The Court
decides that it cannot recognize the
| legality of State government except
authorized to do so by Congress; AMI
that such authority is furnished by
Congress when it admits Senators and
Representatives from communities
claiming to be States. And this is
precisely what Congress has refused to
do in the case of the States which be-
longed to the late Confederate gov
eminent. In this part Of it's opinion,
the Court was unanimous and though
Judge Woodbury. dissented on a point
in issue concerning martial law, he
took especial pains to assign "addi-
tional and different. reasons why he
concurred with the rest of the Court
in the opinion, that the other leading
question we quote his language) els
not within oar constitutional jurisdiction"
Judge Woodbury. was not only learn
ed and profound jurist, but distin
euished statesman of the State Rights
Jefersonian school. We quote from
his opinion as follows:
fortunately for our freedom from politi-
cal excitement in judicial duties, this court
can never with propriety be called on official
ly to be the umpire in questions merely political.
The adjustment of these questions belongs to
the people and their political representa-
tives, either in the State or general govern
ment These questions relate to matters not
to be settled on strict legal principles
They are adjusted rather by inclination; or
prejudice, or compromise, often. Some of
them succeed or are defeated even by pub
lie policy alone; or mere naked power, rather
than intrinsic right. There being so differ
emit tastes as well as opinions in politics. and
especially in forming constitutions; some
people prefer foreign models, some domestic
and some neither; while judges, on the con-
trary, for their guides, have fixed constitu-
tions and laws given to them by others, and |
not provided by themselves. And those |
others are no more Locke than an Able |
Sieyes, but the people. Judges for coAsti-
tutions most go to the people of their own |
country, and must merely enforce such as the |
people themselves, whose judicial servants
they are, have been pleased to put into ope- |
ration.
Another evil, alarming and little foreseen,
involved in regarding these as questions for
the final arbitrament of judges would be,
that in such an event all political privileges
and rights would, in dispute among the
people. depend on our decision finally We
would possess the power to decide against
as well as for them, and under preiudiced
or arbitrary judiciary the public liberties and
popular privileges might thus be much per-
verted, if not entirely Frustrated
THE Constitution of the United States
enumerates specially the cases over which
its judiciary is to have cognizance, but no
where includes controversies between the
people of State as to the formation or
change of their constitutions See art. 1862.
Though at first the federal judiciary ,cas en-
po,cered to entertain jurisdiction schere State
acas party ina suit, 1t has since, been deprived
eren Of that poscer By jealous country, except in
cases of disputed boundary. Art. 8, sec. q