Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-04-24
WRONGS WITHOUT REuEDI

WRONGS WITHOUT REMEDY.
The Cincinnati Enquirer, speaking 0
the decision Of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the Mississippi injune
ton case, says:
One result, however, of the decision il
Balpable, and will probably strike law.
yers with surprise There Is q class o
statutes over questions Of whose cOnsti
nationality the supreme court of the
United States declares itself TO have NJ
jurisdiction. There is 8 class of possible
Injuries which our judicial Institution.
are impotent to redress. The lega.
maxim once holden 10 be Of universe
application, "for every wrong there is g
remedy" is not now, If it were ever
applicable to our system Of government
If this is trUe-if it is made practically
so through its establishment as q
I precedent, by the court of final appeal in
the United States, then U government
is detective in a respect that has not
heretofore been believed; defective in q
respect which will not only ultimately
work its destruction, but will make il,
destruction q thing to be desired. A gov
eminent so lame and incomplete, bun
glingly constructed, so impotent or so OBJ
I ELI 0ANANG u HUI " BDGCCcs ANAAAENALA lA@4A1
as broad as the field of possible ~privation
ofright, is too weak to continue, and too
worthless to deserve labor or sacrifice for
its continuance.
1t never was true that for every wrong
there is a remedy. a State or the United
States cannot be sued, against her own
consent, and may defraud her creditors
as much as it pleases. Congress can
refuse TO pay claims ]adjudged by the
Court Of Claims To be valid and where
is the remedy? There is always, in
every Department Of a Government, an
ultimate power Of decision or action,
from which there is no appeal, and
where wrong can be done without rem
edy. Where is the remedy, if the Su-
/ preme Court of the United States should
decide ccgruptlv, and make effectual an
infamous robbery cf rtghtsH When the
Senate or House decides 6 contested
election case in villainous disregard of
honesty and right, as each almostSgli-
formly does, where is the remedy? The
party robbed Of his rights cannot go to
the Supreme CSdrt for a mandamus to
I command he House or Senate to admit
him to his seat. When Ohio, Connect
| cut. Wisconsin and other States violated
the Constitution by persopal-iberty bills,
where was the remedy for those robbed
by their legislation?
The ENQUIRER further saws
As we remarked above, we do not
know what grounds were taken by the
! court id deciding tie question that is
to say whether they were geGe.Gi-hav-
ing reference to the supposed coDstitu-
tional relations between the different
branches of the government or whether
they were special-having relation to the
particular condition of the states whose
people reballed. TIE argument of the
attorney-general was upon the general
. ground. He did not recognize any
difference, in constitutional contem-
platioE, between u state and
another-betWesE TIE rights of a
northern and those OF a sobthe.n state.
If the court has taken the same view,
and there is nothing in the dispatch
copied above TO indicate the contrary,
this decision virtually vests in congress
tbs rover, at any time, to snnul the
constitution and government Of a state,
and destroy its autbnoMy, .eGTsng it no
imaginable meen Of redress. 1t is S /
revolution in itself. Government to-day
is not the thing it was yesterday and |
We have taken a step whose couse-
queness aEe zoo Hgftentous to be viewed
without deep apprehSnslC4.
That ID just what Congress IA do.
The remedy was In the right of the State
so outraged to secede,-an extreme rem
edy, when all others failed. The Demo-
cratic party, to which the Enquirer be-
denied the South that right. II
has ceased to exist, as a living and ef-
fectualright, crashed by the bloody hands
Of War and now the States have indeed
DO remedy against the unlawful usurpa.
tons OF Congress. Pert OF the States,
combining, may ~proyincialize the rest.
To go to the Supreme Court for redress
IS simply ridiculous. That Tribunal can
by writ Of Prohibition forbid
Congress to pass an unconstitutional
.aw nor by writ of Mandamus COM
nane Il 70 restore States to their rights
lor by writ of Injunction constrain the
President to refrain from executing a
sw. All that is beyond its sphere of
lction and Jurisdiction. In denying the
light Of Secession, the Northern States
committed a stupid, act of folly. We
lOpe to live until we see them reap the
o~nseguenees ia full.