Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-06-15

state agreed that when they should
come before her, in her own courts they
should, IN o manner OF other, be re-
ferred to the National Supreme Court for
decision. And II they are not 50 referred,
all the evils pointed ont IN regard 70 the
first class Of cases would spring up in
this.
IL the provision Of the Constitution,
violated by the State law, were n that
guaranteed individual rights, the other
states would still be Interested because
the rights OF their citizens might be az
fected. II they were not, ana the evil
were confined to citizens OF the offend
ing State, other considerations equally
as weighty would arise.
The provisions Of the Constitution,
that no State should pass CT post GGctc
laws, or laws impairing the obligation
Of contract, were no doubt intended, 10
part, to prevent injury TO the citizens Of
neV States, by the passage Of sneh laws,
and to enable such States to protect
those citizens against them, in the Ma
tional Courts. But it is also to be sup
posed that they were likewise intended
to protect the citizens Of the very State
that might enact such laws, and to give
them also the right to appeal to az the
States, in the Nsuonal Supreme Court
to enforce the engagement Of the State
that she would not pass such laws. The
promise was implied in the prohibition.
Every legal promise and engagement is
made to and with some party. To whom
was this made? The States alone are
parties to the Constitution; and there
fore each state made the promise to all
the others, and so not only gave them
the right to enforce it, but made it their
duty to do so.
The citizens Of the offending State
must sue in her own courts. Yet she has
promised that they shall have the right
to protection, against her action, if it be
in violation of the Constitution, By the
Judicial power Of all the States. She has
promised that che viii not claim the
/ right her2lf tS decide the matter in the
last resort. IL follows that she
must permit them, by appeal 81 otEs--
wise, TO have the judgment Of the Su-
preme National Court. The citizens Of
other States can have it, by suing her
citizens in the National Courts and
again we have all the evils above pointed
out, Of q law for q part Of her citizens
which is no law for another part OF one
law for part Of her citizens and another
for the stranger.
Whether these provisions Of the Con-
stitutioH were or were not Intended for
the protection Of her own citizens, makes
no difference. They are there, and her
citizens have the right to claim that the
United States shall enforcs them. She
has promised not to enact certain laws,
TO the injury Of private rights. II she
does so, her own citizens, injured or ag-
grieved by this violation Of her promise,
have the right to Gallon the other States,
to whom the promise in their behalf wss
made, 60 require her TO sit with them
seIues in the Supreme Court, and there
re-examiniBg the matter, abide by the
joint decision.
Third Where q State Court denies
some right claimed under q law or
Treaty Of the United States. Here the
same reasons in behalf Of the citizens ap-
ply. Each State has the right to claim
them for her citizens, against citizens Of
another State and the istteF cannot in
sist that she shall decide the controversy.
She is not impartial between her own
citizens and those Of other States. But
apart from this, all the States guarantee
every right and title that vests under a
national law or Treaty. No citizen in
whom such 3 right vests, is bound to ae-
eept, in lieu OF his guarantee, that Of
am n State, even if it be his own.
His interest under the law or Treaty may
be adverse to hers, or distasteful to her
public opinion, No citizen, claiming
such a right, can Justly be compelled to
accept tue judgment Of any one State
upon it, az final. No citizen against
whom such a claim is preferred, can
Justly be compelled to submit it to the
Judgment Of any 4 State, in the last
resort. He has a right to the JUdgment
Of all, in the ArSopsgus OF the Confed-
eraey.
Fourth. The Constitution of the Uni
ted States enables a citizen Of one State
to sue a citizen OF another in the Circuit
Court Of the United states within the
from whose decision he may ap-
peal TO the Supreme Court Of the United
Ststes. II sued in a Court Of another
State, by = citizen Of that State, he has
by law the right 20 transfer the case into
the Circuit C~ourtofthe United States SHd
thus, suing or sued, he can decline the
Jurisdiction OF the State courts, even Of the
first instance. But The Confederate Con-
stitution only gave jurisdiction between
OF one Of the States OF the Con-
Iederacy and Of a foreign State; and so
compelled the citizen Of Arkansas, for
Instance, TO sue the citizen Of Louisiana
70 the State Courts of Louisiana, and if
,ued in those Courts to abide their judg-
nent. There was, therefore, so much
he more reason Why 70 protect the cit
Of each State against unconstitu.
ional legislation by another State, and
the ieaniEgs Of State Courts in
avour Of their own laws and citizens,
N appeal should have been granted 10
hese citizens so suing and sued in the
Of another State, TO the Supreme
Court Ofthe Confederate States, from the
decision Of the State Court Of last resort.
L is hard to understand how any State
hOuld be willing to submit the dearest
lights of its citizens. absolutely and
appeal in any case, to, the Courts {
# another State. And It'll quite evident
hat, in making the change as to the s
jurisdiction of the Courts Of the I
General Government, and denying it as
citizens of the different States ,
f the Confederscy, u Constitution
nenders had not been as wise as the C
atbers were. L
Add to this, that the laws and Treaties :
( the Union ought every where to be !
Interpreted alike; and that If they we're i
if each State could decide upon them {
q the last resort, the United States would L
ave been guilty Of this injustice and 4
there would be one law and T.
he Treaty for the people Of n State,
I'd another law and another Treaty for Y
people Of another Stale; and what 7
eed Of further argument? The Nation o
should employ the Courts Of an J.
Their Nation to expound and interpret \
nd enforce its laws, would part with its D
Idicial power, and so far abdicate. 1t 81
be as absurd for the United a
.ates to leave it to the Courts Of each "
tate to eXpound their laws and Treaties. Al
The Federal Government is supreme, Ct
thin the scope Of its legitimate powers. u
be supremacy is complete, 50 far as it Il
IS any power at ali. The supreme ST
over Of government does not consist Z